FITNESS CONSEQUENCES OF PARENTAL COMPATIBILITY IN THE FROG <i>CRINIA GEORGIANA</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theory suggests that multiple mating by females can evolve as a mechanism for acquiring compatible genes that promote offspring fitness. Genetic compatibility models predict that differences in fitness among offspring arise from interactions between male and female haplotypes. Using a cross-classified breeding design and in vitro fertilization, we raised families of maternal and paternal half-siblings of the frog Crinia georgiana, a species with a polyandrous breeding system and external fertilization. After controlling for variation in maternal provisioning, we found significant effects of interacting parental haplotypes on fertilization success, and nonadditive genetic effects on measures of offspring fitness such as embryo survival, and survival to, size at, and time to metamorphosis. Additive genetic variation due to males and females was negligible, and not statistically significant for any of the fitness traits measured. Combinations of parental haplotypes that resulted in high rates of fertilization produced offspring with higher embryo survival and rapid juvenile development. We suggest that a gamete recognition mechanism for selective fertilization by compatible sperm may promote offspring fitness in this system.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".