Somatic senescence: evidence from female Richardson's ground squirrels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied reproductive and somatic investments in >700 female Richardson's ground squirrels ( Spermophilus richardsonii ) of known age over a 14‐year period to evaluate three hypotheses, restraint, senescence, and residual reproductive value, proposed to explain age‐specific life history patterns in iteroparous vertebrates. We found that reproductive investment, measured as litter mass at first emergence from the natal nest, did not differ among age classes. Although yearling female Richardson's ground squirrels made a greater somatic investment during reproduction than older females, they produced similar numbers and mass of offspring as older females. Reproductive investment did not decline with age, though active season somatic investment was lowest in the oldest females. Somatic investment during reproduction was highest in yearlings. This combination of age‐related changes in somatic investment unaccompanied by changes in reproductive investment was not well explained by any of the hypotheses examined, though the senescence hypothesis best explained the combination of declining somatic investment and declining survival of the oldest females. Our results supported the ideas that reproductive and somatic senescence evolve independently, and that somatic senescence may be more common in relatively smaller species.
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".