Intraspecific variation in testis size of small mammals: implications for muscle mass
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intraspecific variation in testis size is usually interpreted in the context of sperm competition, yet an unconsidered consequence of increased testis size may be an increase in the production of testosterone, which can affect the growth of muscle mass. After muscle mass is corrected for body size, male small mammals have more muscle mass than females, which suggests that it may be a sexually selected trait. An enhanced musculature may have fitness consequences with respect to male mate-searching activities and malemale competition for access to females. We tested the prediction that males with large testes have more muscle mass (measured as lean dry mass) by examining testis size and body composition in three species of small mammals (bushy-tailed wood rat (Neotoma cinerea), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), and red-backed vole (Clethrionomys gapperi)) from the Kananaskis Valley, Alberta. In all three species, males with relatively large testes had relatively more lean dry mass than males with relatively small testes. This suggests that a secondary consequence of relatively large testes may be a relative increase in muscle mass. Further research should investigate alternative effects of intraspecific variation in testis size on individual fitness within wild populations to gain further insight into sexual selection.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".