Individual quality and age but not environmental or social conditions modulate costs of reproduction in a capital breeder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Costs associated with reproduction are widely known to play a role in the evolution of reproductive tactics with consequences to population and eco-evolutionary dynamics. Evaluating these costs as they pertain to species in the wild remains an important goal of evolutionary ecology. Individual heterogeneity, including differences in individual quality (i.e., among-individual differences in traits associated with survival and reproduction) or state, and variation in environmental and social conditions can modulate the costs of reproduction; however, few studies have considered effects of these factors simultaneously. Taking advantage of a detailed, long-term dataset for a population of feral horses (Sable Island, Nova Scotia, Canada), we address the question of how intrinsic (quality, age), environmental (winter severity, location), and social conditions (group size, composition, sex ratio, density) influence the costs of reproduction on subsequent reproduction. Individual quality was measured using a multivariate analysis on a combination of four static and dynamic traits expected to depict heterogeneity in individual performance. Female quality and age interacted with reproductive status of the previous year to determine current reproductive effort, while no effect of social or environmental covariates was found. High-quality females showed higher probabilities of giving birth and weaning their foal regardless of their reproductive status the previous year, while those of lower quality showed lower probabilities of producing foals in successive years. Middle-aged (prime) females had the highest probability of giving birth when they had not reproduced the year before, but no such relationship with age was found among females that had reproduced the previous year, indicating that prime-aged females bear higher costs of reproduction. We show that individual quality and age were key factors modulating the costs of reproduction in a capital breeder but that environmental or social conditions were not, highlighting the importance of considering multiple factors when studying costs of reproduction.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".