MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2367908093 · doi:10.1111/ele.12607

Costs of reproduction can explain the correlated evolution of semelparity and egg size: theory and a test with salmon

2016· article· en· W2367908093 on OpenAlexafffund
Holly K. Kindsvater, Douglas C. Braun, Sarah P. Otto, John D. Reynolds

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology Letters · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaInStream Fisheries Research (Canada)Simon Fraser University
FundersPacific Salmon Foundation
KeywordsSemelparity and iteroparityBiologyLife history theoryTraitEcologyReproductionLife historyAbiotic componentZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Species' life history traits, including maturation age, number of reproductive bouts, offspring size and number, reflect adaptations to diverse biotic and abiotic selection pressures. A striking example of divergent life histories is the evolution of either iteroparity (breeding multiple times) or semelparity (breed once and die). We analysed published data on salmonid fishes and found that semelparous species produce larger eggs, that egg size and number increase with salmonid body size among populations and species and that migratory behaviour and parity interact. We developed three hypotheses that might explain the patterns in our data and evaluated them in a stage-structured modelling framework accounting for different growth and survival scenarios. Our models predict the observation of small eggs in iteroparous species when egg size is costly to maternal survival or egg number is constrained. By exploring trait co-variation in salmonids, we generate new hypotheses for the evolution of trade-offs among life history traits.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.167 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations24
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology LettersSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207