MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101962231 · doi:10.1139/z06-023

Detection of multiple paternity and sperm storage in a captive colony of the central Asian tortoise, <i>Testudo horsfieldii</i>

2006· article· en· W2101962231 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Emily E. Johnston, Matthew S. Rand, Stephan G. Zweifel

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurtle Biology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCarleton College
KeywordsBiologySperm competitionMicrosatelliteZoologySpermReproductive successMatingReproductive isolationMating systemGeneticsAllelePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reproductive success is a critical measure of an organism’s fitness. Determining reproductive success in vertebrates is confounded by the concealed mechanism and timing of fertilization (e.g., sperm competition and storage). To assess the relationship between observed mating behavior and reproductive success in the central Asian tortoise, Testudo horsfieldii Gray, 1844, we determined individual genotypes from a captive colony of adults and their offspring. We constructed a size-selected genomic library from T. horsfieldii and screened for polymorphic microsatellite markers. The screen resulted in identification of two novel microsatellite regions. Cross-species amplification of microsatellite markers using primers developed for the bog turtle, Glyptemys muhlenbergii (Schoepff, 1801), resulted in isolation of three additional polymorphic microsatellites for T. horsfieldii. The five loci, which have between 5 and 17 alleles and observed heterozygosities between 0.44 and 0.90, were used to determine the frequency of multiple paternity in the captive colony. We found evidence for multiple paternity in 27% of the clutches examined, as well as evidence for overwinter sperm storage and variance in adult male reproductive success. These data indicate that ample opportunity exists for sperm competition and female mate choice in T. horsfieldii.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score0.911

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.162
Teacher spread0.157 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations16
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicTurtle Biology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207