MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimal offspring provisioning when egg size is “constrained”: a case study with the painted turtle <i>Chrysemys picta</i>

2007· article· en· W2093960338 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Njal Rollinson, Ronald J. Brooks

Bibliographic record

VenueOikos · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurtle Biology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsAvian clutch sizeBiologyOffspringPainted turtleZoologyPopulationEcologyHatchlingTurtle (robot)ReproductionDemographyHatching

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Classic egg size theory predicts that, in a given environment, there is a level of maternal investment per offspring that will maximize maternal fitness. However, positive correlations among egg size and female body size are observed within populations in diverse animal taxa. A popular explanation for this phenomenon is that, in some populations, morphological constraints on egg size, such as ovipositor size (insects) or pelvic aperture width (lizards and turtles), limit egg size. Egg size may therefore increase with female body size due to body size‐specific constraints on investment per offspring, coupled with selection towards an optimal egg size. We use 17 years of data from a population of painted turtles Chrysemys picta to evaluate this hypothesis. In accordance with our predictions, we find that (1) morphological constraints on egg size are apparent only in relatively small females, similarly (2) egg mass exhibits a strong asymptotic relationship with female body size, suggesting egg mass is optimized only at large body sizes, (3) clutch size, not egg mass, varies with female condition, and (4) clutch size varies more than egg mass across years. Contrary to our predictions, we observe that (5) the egg mass‐clutch size tradeoff is not less pronounced at large body sizes. Our data do not fully support the traditional hypothesis, and recent models suggest that this hypothesis is indeed overly simplistic. When the selective environment of a female's offspring is influenced by her phenotype, optimal egg size may vary among maternal phenotypes. This concept can explain correlations among egg size and body size in many taxa, as well as the patterns observed in the present study. In this paradigm, a tight coupling of aperture width (or other ‘constraints’) and egg size may occur in small females, even when such morphological features are not causally related to variation in egg size. In this spirit, we question validity of invoking morphological constraints to explain covariation among egg size and female body size.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations42
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOikosSame topicTurtle Biology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207