Is reproduction really costly? Energy metabolism of bank vole (Clethrionomys glareolus) females through the reproductive cycle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Energetic requirements during reproduction are important determinants of the onset of reproduction and of breeding strategy (e.g., breeding post-partum) and therefore affect female reproductive output in seasonally varying environments. To balance the energetic needs of breeding with energy availability, females must optimize energy allocation between their own energy use and energy allocated to their litter. Here, we studied energetic costs and potential energetic trade-offs of reproduction in female bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus). We measured energy consumption, i.e., metabolic rates as determined from carbon dioxide production of females either with their pups (breeding unit) to find the total energy expenditure of breeding or alone (maternal energy use), to find potential trade-offs between energy allotted to offspring and to maintenance metabolism. We found that energy used by breeding units remained on the non-pregnant level during pregnancy and increased during lactation but did not increase further during post-partum pregnancy. Maternal energy use remained unchanged through the breeding cycle. Carbon dioxide produced per gram of tissue decreased throughout the reproductive cycle for both breeding units and females alone, suggesting that energy use efficiency improved with advancing pregnancy and lactation. Our study supports the idea that in small mammals reproduction does not increase female energetic costs beyond the costs involved in increasing body mass. We found further that offspring body mass did not differ between lactating non-pregnant and lactating pregnant females and that there were no trade-offs between female energy use and offspring body mass. We conclude that energy allocation by breeding iteroparous females allows for an optimal breeding strategy, i.e., fertilization of new ova post-partum.
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".