The logic of skipped spawning in fish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
That sexually mature fish skip reproduction, especially in response to poor condition, has been documented in many species. We present results from an energy-allocation life history model that shed light on the underlying logic of skipped spawning, based on the Northeast Arctic stock of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). The model predicts that skipped spawning is a regular phenomenon, with up to 30% of the sexually mature biomass skipping spawning. Spawning should be skipped if the expected future gain in reproductive output, discounted by survival, more than balances the expected reproductive success the current year. Skipped spawning was most common (i) among potential second-time spawners and (ii) early in life, (iii) when fishing mortality at the spawning grounds was high, (iv) when fishing mortality at the feeding grounds was low, (v) when natural mortality was low, and (vi) when the energetic and mortality costs associated with migration and spawning were high. Cod skipped spawning more often when food availability was both increased (opportunities for better growth) and decreased (too little energy for gonad development), and this pattern interacted with mortality rate. We conclude that skipped spawning may be more widespread than appreciated and highlight potential consequences for the understanding of stockrecruitment relationships.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".