Offspring of older parents are smaller—but no less bilaterally symmetrical—than offspring of younger parents in the aquatic plant <i>Lemna turionifera</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Offspring quality decreases with parental age in many taxa, with offspring of older parents exhibiting reduced life span, reproductive capacity, and fitness, compared to offspring of younger parents. These “parental age effects,” whose consequences arise in the next generation, can be considered as manifestations of parental senescence, in addition to the more familiar age‐related declines in parent‐generation survival and reproduction. Parental age effects are important because they may have feedback effects on the evolution of demographic trajectories and longevity. In addition to altering the timing of offspring life‐history milestones, parental age effects can also have a negative impact on offspring size, with offspring of older parents being smaller than offspring of younger parents. Here, we consider the effects of advancing parental age on a different aspect of offspring morphology, body symmetry. In this study, we followed all 403 offspring of 30 parents of a bilaterally symmetrical, clonally reproducing aquatic plant species, Lemna turionifera, to test the hypothesis that successive offspring become less symmetrical as their parent ages, using the “Continuous Symmetry Measure” as an index. Although successive offspring of aging parents older than one week became smaller and smaller, we found scant evidence for any reduction in bilateral symmetry.
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".