Complex offspring size effects: variations across life stages and between species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Classical optimality models of offspring size and number assume a monotonically increasing relationship between offspring size and performance. In aquatic organisms with complex life cycles, the size-performance function is particularly hard to grasp because measures of performance are varied and their relationships with size may not be consistent throughout early ontogeny. Here, we examine size effects in premetamorphic (larval) and postmetamorphic (juvenile) stages of brooding marine animals and show that they vary contextually in strength and direction during ontogeny and among species. Larger offspring of the sea anemone Urticina felina generally outperformed small siblings at the larval stage (i.e., greater settlement and survival rates under suboptimal conditions). However, results differed when analyses were conducted at the intrabrood versus across-brood levels, suggesting that the relationship between larval size and performance is mediated by parentage. At the juvenile stage (15 months), small offspring were less susceptible than large ones to predation by subadult nudibranchs and both sizes performed similarly when facing adult nudibranchs. In a sympatric species with a different life history (Aulactinia stella), all juveniles suffered similar predation rates by subadult nudibranchs, but smaller juveniles performed better (lower mortalities) when facing adult nudibranchs. Size differences in premetamorphic performance of U. felina were linked to total lipid contents of larvae, whereas size-specific predation of juvenile stages followed the general predictions of the optimal foraging strategy. These findings emphasize the challenge in gathering empirical support for a positive monotonic size-performance function in taxa that exhibit complex life cycles, which are dominant in the sea.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".