Variation in reproduction of a temperate deer, the southern pudu (Pudu puda)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pudu (Pudu puda), occurring in the southern cone of Latin America, has been classified as vulnerable by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), yet little is known about this animal in the wild, with most knowledge on the breeding behaviour coming from captive animals. For this second-smallest deer in the world, delayed implantation has been suggested to explain the two peaks in the annual cycle of male sexual hormones on the basis of the accepted tenet that the breeding period occurs only once a year, between March and June. However, in the present study, birth dates from fawns born at the Los Canelos semi-captive breeding centre in Chile and male courting behaviour revealed the possibility of two rutting periods: autumn and spring. To our knowledge, this is the first time that late-fall births (May through early June for 17% of fawns in the study population) have been recorded for the southern pudu; two of these four births were conceived by females in the wild. From zoo and captive-animal birth records (n = 97), only three fawns were born in the fall. For all births combined (n = 121), 77% occurred in spring. The roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) and Pere David deer (Elaphurus davidianus) have been considered the only two temperate cervids in which sexual activity is initiated by increasing daylength and which breed in early summer. Yet, the present results indicate a similar response from the southern pudu when under a wild or semi-captive environment, with breeding taking place in spring. These results suggest that this species may either have two reproductive periods per year or retains the capacity to be a breeder for a much more extended period of time than documented by earlier studies. Pudu, like other temperate deer, is responsive to photoperiod for timing its breeding period, but may further optimise its production of offspring by also responding to other environmental cues such as seasonal variation in food supply when climatic conditions are favourable.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".