Effect of food availability on reproduction and brood size in a freshwater brooding bivalve
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brood size is often constrained by the amount of energy available to produce offspring. Yet, energetic constraints may not be as important if the physical capacity to brood offspring is limited. Investigating the relative importance of energetic and physical constraints on brood size is necessary to understand how reproductive strategies are molded by natural selection. We investigated how food availability affects brood size in Sphaerium striatinum, a freshwater bivalve. We reared juveniles to adulthood under three food levels in a common garden experiment. The number of reproductive attempts, brood size, and stage of offspring development were measured. Clams reared with the most food reproduced more often, produced more offspring per reproductive attempt, and contained larger broods than clams reared with less food. These data support the notion that food availability is an important factor in the production of offspring and overall brood size. However, the number of offspring surviving to later stages of development was not different among treatments. In fact, clams reared with the most food lost proportionately more offspring than clams reared with less food. We conclude that physical constraints are more important in determining overall brood size than energetic constraints in S. striatinum.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".