Female wolverine (<i>Gulo gulo</i>) reproduction: reproductive costs and winter food availability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An individual has only a given amount of resources, and therefore an increase in one demographic trait results in a trade-off that necessitates a decrease in a different demographic trait. In general, the main factor determining an individual mammal's reproductive investment is food supply. This study addresses how female wolverine (Gulo gulo (L., 1758)) reproduction is limited. I tested two complementary hypotheses: (1) current reproduction is affected by the costs of reproduction in the preceding year and (2) current reproduction is affected by food availability in the current winter. I addressed the first hypothesis by comparing reproductive rates of females in relation to their reproductive effort in the preceding year. I experimentally tested the second hypothesis by comparing reproductive rates of food-supplemented females versus non-supplemented females. Reproduction incurred costs on female wolverines that affected future reproduction, and reproductive costs appeared to be related to the duration of parental care. Reproduction was higher for food-supplemented females than for non-supplemented females, even though all food-supplemented females had reproduced the preceding year. This study suggests that reproduction is limited by winter food availability and that additional food can compensate for reproductive costs. Thus, I suggest that female wolverine reproduction is determined by their condition in winter, which is a result of the combined effect of reproductive costs and winter food availability.
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) | 0.003 | 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 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".