Tactic‐specific benefits of polyandry in Chinook salmon <i>Oncorhynchus tshawytscha</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined whether polyandrous female Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha obtain benefits compared with monandrous females through an increase in hatching success. Both of the alternative reproductive tactics present in male O. tshawytscha (large hooknoses and small, precocious jacks) were used, such that eggs were either fertilized by a single male (from each tactic) or multiple males (using two males from the same or different tactics). The results show that fertilized eggs from the polyandrous treatments had a significantly higher hatching success than those from the monandrous treatments. It is also shown that sperm speed was positively related with offspring hatching success. Finally, there were tactic-specific effects on the benefits females received. The inclusion of jacks in any cross resulted in offspring with higher hatching success, with the cross that involved a male from each tactic providing offspring with the highest hatching success than any other cross. This study has important implications for the evolution of multiple mating and why it is so prevalent across taxa, while also providing knowledge on the evolution of mating systems, specifically those with alternative reproductive tactics.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".