Age‐specific resource investment strategies: evidence from female Richardson's ground squirrels (<i>Spermophilus richardsonii</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To avoid a possible cost to their future survival and/or reproduction, individuals must balance their somatic and reproductive investments. The van Noordwijk and De Jong model of resource investment predicts that investments into reproduction and soma can vary among individuals of a population based on the variation in the total amount of energy that individuals acquire. With principal components analysis (PCA), we created two axes of life history for female Richardson's ground squirrels Spermophilus richardsonii: an index of total energy investment (PC1) and an index of investment tactic (PC2). Using these indices, we examined patterns of resource allocation to reproductive and somatic investments. Because yearling female Richardson's ground squirrels complete growth to adult size during pregnancy and early lactation, their somatic needs exceed those of older, fully grown females. Therefore, we predicted that yearlings would show more evidence of a tradeoff between reproductive and somatic investments compared with older females. Both yearling and older females invested four to five times more mass into their litters than into their own body mass. With increasing total investment, yearling females increased investment in both reproduction and themselves, whereas older females invested relatively more in reproduction than themselves. Regardless of age, females that emerged heavier from hibernation invested fewer resources into themselves and more into their litters. Variation in total energy investment and investment tactic indices was similar for yearling and older females. Contrary to our prediction, however, yearling females showed positive associations between reproductive and somatic investments, whereas older females exhibited showed no significant association between reproductive and somatic investments.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".