Protracted Reproductive Seasonality in the Male Giant Panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) Reflected by Patterns in Androgen Profiles, Ejaculate Characteristics, and Selected Behaviors1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The female giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) experiences a brief (24-72 h) seasonal estrus, occurring once annually in spring (February-May). Our aim was to determine the existence and temporal profile of reproductive seasonality in the male of this species. The study was facilitated by 3 yr of access to eight giant panda males living in a large breeding center in China. Seasonal periods for the male were defined on the basis of female reproductive activity as prebreeding, breeding (early, peak, late), and nonbreeding seasons. Testes size, fecal androgen excretion, ejaculated sperm density, and frequency of reproductive behaviors (i.e., locomotion, scent marking, vocalizations) increased (P < 0.05) from the prebreeding period (October 1-January 31) to the early breeding season (February 1-March 21). Testes volume and sperm concentration were maximal from March 22 through April 15, a period coinciding with maximal female breeding activity. The occurrence of male reproductive behaviors and fecal androgen concentrations began declining during peak breeding and continued from April 16 through May 31 (late breeding period), returning to nadir throughout the nonbreeding interval (June 1-September 30). Reproductive quiescence throughout the latter period was associated with basal testes size/volume and aspermic ejaculates. Our results reveal that testes morphometry, fecal androgen excretion, seminal quality, and certain behaviors integrated together clearly demonstrate reproductive seasonality in the male giant panda. The coordinated increases in testes size, androgen production, sperm density, and sexual behaviors occur over a protracted interval, likely to prepare for and then accommodate a brief, unpredictable female estrus.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".