Food‐limited mothers favour offspring quality over offspring number: a principal components approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Mothers are expected to balance the trade‐off between the number and quality of offspring, and many theoretical studies describe how the maternal environment might influence the evolution of the number–quality trade‐off. However, few empirical studies attempt to test these theories (and their assumptions) by measuring the fitness consequences of variation in investment per offspring. Part of the problem is that measuring offspring fitness is difficult, which frequently leads experimenters to measure several proxies of offspring fitness in place of a comprehensive fitness assay. This strategy tends to result in multiple univariate analyses that involve different offspring fitness proxies, and these tests can have low power and may produce conflicting conclusions. Here, we demonstrate the benefits of integrating maternal fecundity and proxies of offspring size and fitness into multivariate analyses to elucidate variation in reproductive allocation strategies. In a 2 × 2 factorial experiment, we manipulated the quality of maternal environment (food availability) throughout early and late adulthood (acute and chronic exposure to the maternal environment) in a field cricket. We developed a multivariate index of reproductive allocation by incorporating maternal fecundity and the performance of offspring in low‐ and high‐food environments into a principle components analysis. This index of reproductive allocation indicated that females decreased fecundity and increased offspring quality after chronic exposure to low‐food environments, thereby providing evidence of adaptive plasticity in investment per offspring. In contrast, few treatment effects were observed using univariate analyses. The present study demonstrates that multivariate analysis can increase our ability to assess the adaptive significance of reproductive strategies, particularly in situations when offspring size and fitness are difficult to measure with accuracy. Such an approach might ultimately help assess the adaptive significance of reproductive allocation across a wider range of taxa, thereby providing broader insight into the evolution of reproductive strategies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".