Life history evolution in cichlids 1: revisiting the evolution of life histories in relation to parental care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Empirical links between egg size and duration of parental care in fishes have generated a considerable amount of theory concerning life history evolution. However, to date, this link has not been investigated in relation to other important life-history traits such as clutch size and body size, or while controlling for shared ancestry between species. We provide the first phylogenetically based tests using a database with information on egg size, clutch size, body size and care duration in cichlid fishes (Cichlidae). Multiple regression analyses, based on independent contrasts on both the species and the genus level, showed that clutch size is the variable most closely related to duration of care. This pattern appeared to be driven by post-hatch care relationships. Our results show that, contrary to expectation, there is no positive link between egg size and care duration in Cichlidae. Instead, greater reproductive output through increased clutch size investment appears to have coevolved with greater care of offspring. We suggest that re-evaluation of the generality of current models of the evolution of egg size under parental care in fishes is needed.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".