Effect of larval body size on overwinter survival and emerging adult size in the burying beetle, <i>Nicrophorus investigator</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Body size may influence both adult fecundity and the probability of survival through each life stage. Previous studies of burying beetles (Nicrophorus, Coleoptera: Silphidae) have revealed reproductive advantages for larger adults and the role of parental care in determining larval size and number. In this study I measure the effect of size on survival over the winter period and the correlation between larval size and the size of emerging adults. I collected data from 24 groups of 2025 larvae sorted by size and overwintered outside under natural conditions in Colorado, U.S.A. There was a significant positive correlation between larval size and adult size at emergence and a significant effect of size on overwinter survival. Data from 2 years yielded the following mean survival rates: small, 47.3 ± 1.0%; medium, 73.2 ± 0.7%; large, 85.7 ± 0.4%. These values were then used to accurately predict adult emergence from broods of larvae whose range of size was measured prior to the overwinter period. The results indicate that selection for large body size may result from an overwinter survival advantage and not just from reproductive success. This has implications for fitness models of parental care and models of population dynamics.
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) | 0.001 | 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".