Effects of food restriction on growth, energy allocation, and sexual size dimorphism in Yarrow’s Spiny Lizard, <i>Sceloporus jarrovii</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evolutionary biologists often view sexual size dimorphism (SSD) as a fixed genetic consequence of sexually antagonistic selection, but the actual magnitude of SSD may often be strongly dependent upon proximate environmental factors. Sexual differences in growth rate lead to male-biased SSD in wild populations of Yarrow’s Spiny Lizard ( Sceloporus jarrovii Cope, 1875), yet both sexes grow at similar rates under controlled laboratory conditions. We hypothesized that male-biased SSD in S. jarrovii reflects an obligatory sexual difference in energy allocation to growth versus competing functions, but that an ad libitum diet provides an energy surplus which overwhelms this sex-specific energetic trade-off. To test this hypothesis, we reared juveniles under high (3 crickets/d) and low (1 cricket/d) food availabilities. Food restriction dramatically reduced growth in both sexes but did not differentially affect growth of females relative to males. Food consumption did not differ between sexes, but males grew slightly faster than females at both levels of food availability, indicating a greater fractional allocation of available energy to growth. By contrast, females had larger fat bodies than did males, particularly under food restriction. This sexual difference in energy allocation to storage could explain the slightly higher growth rate of males relative to females.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".