Growth and otolith morphology vary with alternative reproductive tactics and contaminant exposure in the round goby <i>Neogobius melanostomus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Round goby Neogobius melanostomus sagittal (saccular) otolith morphology was compared between males of the two alternative reproductive tactics (termed guarder and sneaker males) and between males captured from sites of high or low contamination. Otolith size increased with fish size and also displayed an ontogenetic shift in shape, becoming relatively taller as otoliths grew in size. Despite a considerable overlap in age between males adopting the two reproductive tactics, size-at-age measurements revealed that guarder males are significantly larger than sneakers at any given age and that they invest more into somatic growth than sneaker males. Controlling for body size, sneaker males possessed heavier sagittal otoliths than guarder males. Subtle otolith shape differences were also found between the two male tactics and between sites of high and low contaminant exposure. Sneaker males had relatively shorter otoliths with more pronounced notching than guarder males. Fish captured at sites of high contamination had otoliths showing slower growth rates in relation to body size and their shapes had more pronounced caudal points and ventral protrusions when compared with fish captured at sites of low contamination. The results are discussed in relation to life-history tradeoffs between the male tactics in terms of reproductive and somatic investment as well as the putative metabolic costs of exposure to contaminants. Overall, this study reveals that male alternative reproductive tactics and environmental contaminants can have small, yet measurable, effects on otolith morphology and these factors should be accounted for in future research when possible.
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 | 0.001 | 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".