Reproductive sharing in relation to group and colony-level attributes in a cooperative breeding fish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The degree to which group members share reproduction is dictated by both within-group (e.g. group size and composition) and between-group(e.g. density and position of neighbours) characteristics. While many studies have investigated reproductive patterns within social groups, few have simultaneously explored how within-group and between-group social structure influence these patterns. Here, we investigated how group size and composition, along with territory density and location within the colony, influenced parentage in 36 wild groups of a colonial, cooperatively breeding fish Neolamprologus pulcher. Dominant males sired 76% of offspring in their group, whereas dominant females mothered 82% of offspring in their group. Subordinate reproduction was frequent, occurring in 47% of sampled groups. Subordinate males gained more paternity in groups located in high-density areas and in groups with many subordinate males. Dominant males and females in large groups and in groups with many reproductively mature subordinates had higher rates of parentage loss, but only at the colony edge. Our study provides, to our knowledge,the first comprehensive quantification of reproductive sharing among groups of wild N. pulcher, a model species for the study of cooperation and social behaviour. Further, we demonstrate that the frequency of extra-pair parentage differs across small social and spatial scales.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".