MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2289954443 · doi:10.1111/1365-2656.12512

The contribution of developmental experience vs. condition to life history, trait variation and individual differences

2016· article· en· W2289954443 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas DiRienzo, Pierre‐Olivier Montiglio

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Ecology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesUniversity of California, DavisAmerican Society of Naturalists
KeywordsJuvenileBiologyForagingPredationAggressionLife history theoryTraitEcologySpiderDevelopmental stageZoologyLife historyPsychologyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1. Developmental experience, for example food abundance during juvenile stages, is known to affect life history and behaviour. However, the life history and behavioural consequences of developmental experience have rarely been studied in concert. As a result, it is still unclear whether developmental experience affects behaviour through changes in life history, or independently of it. 2. The effect of developmental experience on life history and behaviour may also be masked or affected by individual condition during adulthood. Thus, it is critical to tease apart the effects of developmental experience and current individual condition on life history and behaviour. 3. In this study, we manipulated food abundance during development in the western black widow spider, Latrodectus hesperus, by rearing spiders on either a restricted or ad lib diet. We separated developmental from condition-dependent effects by assaying adult foraging behaviour (tendency to attack prey and to stay on out of the refuge following an attack) and web structure multiple times under different levels of satiation following different developmental treatments. 4. Spiders reared under food restriction matured slower and at a smaller size than spiders reared in ad lib conditions. Spiders reared on a restricted diet were more aggressive towards prey and built webs structured for prey capture, while spiders reared on an ad lib diet were less aggressive and built safer webs. Developmental treatment affected which traits were plastic as adults: restricted spiders built safer webs when their adult condition increased, while ad lib spiders reduced their aggression when their adult condition increased. The amount of individual variation in behaviour and web structure varied with developmental treatment. Spiders reared on a restricted diet exhibited consistent variation in all aspects of foraging behaviour and web structure, while spiders reared on an ad lib diet exhibited consistent individual variation in aggression and web weight only. 5. Developmental experience affected the average life history, behaviour and web structure of spiders, but also shaped the amount of phenotypic variation observed among individuals. Surprisingly, developmental experience also determined the particular way in which individuals plastically adjusted their behaviour and web structure to changes in adult condition.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations61
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal EcologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207