Heterogeneity in reproductive success explained by individual differences in bite rate and mass change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Allocation of resources to current reproduction may reduce future reproduction, growth, and survival, but individual heterogeneity in resource acquisition may obscure this fitness cost. In capital breeders, heterogeneity in reproductive success is often related to body mass or condition, underlining the importance of stored reserves for reproduction. Heterogeneity in the rate of resource acquisition could also affect reproduction. Resource acquisition depends on food intake, but the effects of individual foraging rate on mass gain and reproductive success in wild herbivorous mammals are unknown. We measured how individual bite rate affected mass change and reproductive success of 55 female eastern gray kangaroos ( Macropus giganteus ) over 2 years. Females with faster bite rate had greater subsequent mass gain, leading to greater offspring survival. In one of 2 years, bite rate directly increased juvenile survival to 8 months. Bite rate appeared to have a direct effect on survival to weaning for young born to females with above-average mass gain, particularly for females in better body condition. Independent of bite rate, individual mass change explained most of the variation in offspring survival. We found a weak positive effect of body condition on reproductive success, suggesting that condition affected reproductive success through its effect on mass change and bite rate. Kangaroos appeared to combine income and capital breeding strategies to deal with internal and external constraints on resource allocation. Our study underlines the importance of accounting for different sources of individual heterogeneity that may affect trade-offs among life-history traits, with important consequences for population dynamics and 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".