Male reproductive suppression in the cooperatively breeding fish Neolamprologus pulcher
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In most cooperative breeders, dominants suppress the reproduction of subordinates. However, two previous studies of Neolamprologus pulcher, a cooperatively breeding cichlid fish, have suggested that socially subordinate helper males sneak fertilizations from dominant breeding males. If such sneaking does occur, both theoretical work and empirical studies of other fish species suggest that sperm competition will select for increased reproductive investment by sneaker males, relative to more dominant males. To address these issues, we quantified gonadal investment and sperm characteristics of 41 N. pulcher male breeders and 62 male helpers from 55 groups in Lake Tanganyika. Gonadal investment followed patterns consistent with reproductive suppression, with breeders having considerably larger testes masses than helpers. Breeders also had faster and longer swimming sperm and a higher percentage of motile sperm compared to helpers. However, sperm characteristics of large helpers were similar to those of breeders, but these same helpers had lower testes masses. Thus, large helpers had sperm that were physiologically equivalent to that of breeders, but their relatively small gonads imply that they were reproductively suppressed.
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".