Longevity cost of remaining unmated under dietary restriction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary 1. Increases in longevity from dietary restriction (DR) have been linked to the evolution of physiological strategies for maintaining lifetime reproductive output despite periods of nutritional deficiency. If this is the case, then reproductive life history and mating status should determine whether or not dietary restriction increases longevity. 2. We investigate the effects of DR and mating status (mated or unmated) on longevity and lifetime reproductive output and explore mechanisms underlying these patterns by measuring resting energetic rates and changes in mass over time. We study iteroparous female Australian redback spiders (Latrodectus hasselti), which are known to tolerate periods of starvation (ecologically relevant DR) in nature. 3. Mated DR females had the highest longevity of any experimental group, in strong contrast to results for semelparous males of this species [M.M. Kasumovic, M.C.B. Andrade & R.C. Brooks (2009), Biology Letters,5, 636]. Most strikingly, mated females (whether DR or not) had higher longevity than unmated females. 4. Mated females rapidly decreased their resting energetic rates and stopped egg production under DR. Once feeding returned to normal, resting energetic rates of mated females increased immediately, egg sac production continued and there was no net decrease in lifetime reproductive output relative to mated females without DR. 5. This shows DR increases longevity for mated females, but there is a longevity cost of remaining unmated, which may arise because unmated females (regardless of diet) maintained high energetic rates. This may be an evolved pattern of physiological support for reproductive readiness which exerts a fitness cost when mating is delayed. Taken together, these results suggest positive effects of DR on longevity critically depend on reproductive life history (iteroparity or semelparity) and individual mating status.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".