Does selection on horn length of males and females differ in protected and hunted populations of a weakly dimorphic ungulate?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Weaponry in ungulates may be costly to grow and maintain, and different selective pressures in males and females may lead to sex‐biased natural survival. Sexual differences in the relationship between weapon growth and survival may increase under anthropogenic selection through culling, for example because of trophy hunting. Selection on weaponry growth under different scenarios has been largely investigated in males of highly dimorphic ungulates, for which survival costs (either natural or hunting related) are thought to be greatest. Little is known, however, about the survival costs of weaponry in males and females of weakly dimorphic species. We collected information on horn length and age at death/shooting of 407 chamois Rupicapra rupicapra in a protected population and in two hunted populations with different hunting regimes, to explore sexual differences in the selection on early horn growth under contrasting selective pressures. We also investigated the variation of horn growth and body mass in yearling males (n = 688) and females (n = 539) culled in one of the hunted populations over 14 years. The relationship between horn growth and survival showed remarkable sexual differences under different evolutionary scenarios. Within the protected population, under natural selection, we found no significant trade‐off in either males or females. Under anthropogenic pressure, selection on early horn growth of culled individuals showed diametrically opposed sex‐biased patterns, depending on the culling regime and hunters’ preferences. Despite the selective bias between males and females in one of the hunted populations, we did not detect significant sex‐specific differences in the long‐term pattern of early growth. The relationship between early horn growth and natural survival in either sex might suggest stabilizing selection on horn size in chamois. Selection through culling can be strongly sex‐biased also in weakly dimorphic species, depending on hunters’ preferences and hunting regulations, and long‐term data are needed to reveal potential undesirable evolutionary consequences.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".