Kin effects on energy allocation in group‐living ground squirrels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The social environment has potent effects on individual phenotype and fitness in group-living species. We asked whether the presence of kin might act on energy allocation, a central aspect of life-history variation. Using a 22-year data set on reproductive and somatic allocations in Columbian ground squirrels (Urocitellus columbianus), we tested the effects of co-breeding and non-breeding kin on the fitness and energy allocation balance between reproduction and personal body condition of individual females. Greater numbers of co-breeding kin had a positive effect on the number of offspring weaned, through the mechanism of altering energy allocation patterns. On average, females with higher numbers of co-breeding kin did not increase energy income but biased energy allocation towards reproduction. Co-breeding female kin ground squirrels maintain close nest burrows, likely providing a social buffer against territorial invasions from non-kin ground squirrels. Lower aggressiveness, lower risks of infanticide from female kin and greater protection of territorial boundaries may allow individual females to derive net fitness benefits via their energy allocation strategies. We demonstrated the importance of kin effects on a fundamental life-history trade-off.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".