Reproductive performance in grey seals: age‐related improvement and senescence in a capital breeder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Three hypotheses have been advanced to account for age-related improvement in performance: the selection hypothesis predicts improved due to the loss of lower quality phenotypes, the constraint hypothesis predicts individuals improve function, and the restraint hypothesis predicts younger individuals forego or reduce effort because of mortality risks. A decline in age-related performance (i.e. senescence) is predicted by mutation accumulation, antagonistic pleiotropy and disposable soma (wear and tear) hypotheses. 2. Using five measures of performance - birth rate, maternal and pup birth mass, pup weaning mass, weaning success and lactation length - we tested these hypotheses concerning age-related change in reproduction in 279 female grey seals (Halichoerus grypus), ages 4-42 years, over a 23-year period between 1983 and 2005 on Sable Island, Nova Scotia. These females produced 2071 pups. 3. Although body mass of primiparous females increased with age (4-7 years) birth mass of their pups did not, but pup weaning mass did. Second- and third-parity females of the same age as primiparous females gave birth to and weaned heavier pups. However, parity and age were dropped from models when maternal body mass was included. 4. The proportion of females giving birth varied significantly with maternal age, increasing in young females and then declining late in life. Weaning success rate also increased rapidly to about 8 years and subsequently declined in females > 32 years. 5. Generalized additive models indicated nonlinear changes in 3 day body mass (i.e. approximately birth mass) and weaning mass of pups as a function of maternal age, after accounting statistically for the effects of maternal body mass. Mixed-effects, repeated-measures models fitted to longitudinal data further supported the conclusion that pup birth mass and weaning mass vary nonlinearly with maternal age and indicated nonlinear changes in lactation duration. 6. We found some support for the constraint hypothesis, but our findings were not consistent with the selection hypothesis or the restraint hypothesis as the basis for improvement in reproductive performance. 7. Senescence was evident in multiple female and offspring traits, indicating the degeneration in function of several physiological systems as predicted by the disposable soma hypothesis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".