Do behavioural and life-history traits vary with mate-guarding intensity in libellulid odonates?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been demonstrated that in libellulid dragonflies the distribution of eggs during oviposition and the offspring size vary with the type of mate guarding during oviposition (non-contact guarding and contact guarding). In this study, we investigated the hypothesis that oviposition behaviour and life-history traits also differ between these two guarding types. Therefore, we studied oviposition behaviour and life-history traits in six species of a dragonfly assemblage of the Namib Desert. Among the oviposition behaviours, oviposition duration and number of pond changes differed significantly between the guarding types. Clutch size did not differ between the guarding types, whereas some offspring characters, namely egg width, temperature sum to hatch, and larval head width, differed between the guarding types. Eggs of tandem species (those performing contact guarding) were larger, which might explain differences in all other offspring characters studied; bigger eggs need a lower temperature sum for egg development, result in bigger larvae, and have a faster growth rate, all traits that might be seen as an adapation to temporary waters, which are major habitats of the tandem species. This observation is discussed in the light of different dispersal strategies between the species performing different guarding types.
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 | 0.001 | 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".