Relative Body Size Influences Breeding Propensity in Fathead Minnows: Implications for Ecotoxicology Testing Procedure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Numerous factors affect the ability or choice of fishes to breed. For example, studies demonstrate that the appropriate amount of light, temperature, and food must be present before many species will breed. For some species, we are also aware of social factors that affect breeding, such as the size or colour of one's potential mates. Although studies on mate choice (i.e., choice of one potential mate over another) and factors affecting breeding are extensive, there remain significant gaps in our knowledge with regard to scientifically important species. For instance, the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), used by numerous researchers as a test subject in reproductive toxicology and behavioural ecology, has well established physical parameters known to facilitate breeding. Conversely, there is very little data describing social factors which may influence breeding. The purpose of the current study was to examine some of the factors affecting mate choice in the fathead minnow. Results indicate a consistent relationship between male and female size length and mass), which can be used to predict the probability of a couple's breeding potential. Specifically, we found that female minnows prefer larger males. In successful pairs there was a greater difference in size between the male and female as compared with unsuccessful pairs. The findings of this study could substantially improve methods for reproductive studies in laboratories or artificial streams by decreasing both the number of pairs tested against baseline performance criteria and the time needed to establish actively breeding individuals. This will decrease the cost and increase the efficiency of future studies, as well as add ecologically interesting knowledge to the literature regarding a scientifically important, ubiquitous, and representative North American fish 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 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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".