Trade-offs between growth and reproduction in wild Atlantic cod
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animals partition and trade off their resources between competing needs such as growth, maintenance, and reproduction. Over a lifetime, allocation strategies should result in distinct trajectories for growth, survival, and reproduction, but such longitudinal individual data are difficult to reconstruct for wild animals and especially marine fish. We were able to reconstruct two of these trajectories in wild-caught Northeast Arctic cod (Gadus morhua) females: size-at-age was back-calculated from otolith growth increments, and recent spawning history was reconstructed from postovulatory follicles and present oocyte development. Our findings indicate distinct trade-offs between length growth and reproduction. Fish that sexually matured early had attained a larger size at age 3 than immatures, but onset of reproduction caused slower growth compared with immatures. We found that 6- and 7-year-old females skipping spawning grew significantly more in the year of missed spawning than females spawning for the second consecutive year. The latter tentatively supports the hypothesis that skipped spawning may occur as an adaptive life-history strategy, given the potential future fecundity gain with increased size.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".