Patterns of intraspecific aggression inferred from injuries in an aquatic turtle with male-biased size dimorphism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patterns of sexual size dimorphism (SSD) in turtles are correlated with ecological mode, and it has been hypothesized that mating systems are also shaped by ecological mode. Male combat and coercive mating are competing explanations for male-biased SSD, but are difficult to assess empirically in aquatic species with cryptic behaviour. We quantified SSD and compiled observations of putative combat wounds collected from over 500 captures of Snapping Turtles (Chelydra serpentina (L., 1758)) in Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario, to test hypotheses of mate competition and coercion. We found that both sex and body size were important predictors of risk of wounding, consistent with the hypothesis that male–male sexual competition is the primary driver of intraspecific aggression. Low wounding rates among females suggests that resource competition and coercive mating are not important causes of injuries. The risk of wounding increased monotonically with body size in adult males but not in adult females, and small males were less likely to be injured, suggesting that they employ a risk-averse strategy by avoiding direct competition for mates. There was no evidence of asymptotic or decreasing wounding probability in the largest males, which is consistent with the hypothesis that large males compete most intensively to monopolize mates.
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) | 0.002 | 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".