Relative Apportioning of Resources to the Body and Regenerating Tail in Juvenile Leopard Geckos (<i>Eublepharis macularius</i>) Maintained on Different Dietary Rations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Caudal autotomy is a widespread phenomenon among lizards, and similar processes occur in other groups of vertebrates and invertebrates. Many costs have been associated with autotomy, including the regeneration of lost biomass. For lizards, it is not known whether resources are preferentially directed toward caudal regeneration or whether regeneration occurs only when resources are abundant. Conflicting information is present in the literature, and an absence of controlled experiments prevents determination of what pattern of regeneration may occur under a given set of circumstances. We employed the leopard gecko, a fat-tailed species, to examine whether tail regeneration is a priority and, if so, whether it remains so when resources become limiting. We explored this through caudal autotomy and dietary manipulation under conditions that ensured that differences in diet were sufficient to permit differential growth. We examined juvenile leopard geckos because these animals are rapidly growing and allocation of energy is not compromised by reproductive investment. The effects of dietary resource availability and the demands of caudal regeneration were compared in intact and regenerating animals. Our evidence indicates that caudal regeneration is a priority, even when resources are limiting. We conclude that tail regrowth is a priority that is associated with long-term survival and possibly reproductive success.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".