How coexistence may influence life history: the reproductive strategies of sympatric congeneric terrestrial isopods (Crustacea, Oniscidea)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patterns of allocation between reproduction, survival, and maintenance are what we call life history. By investigating the life-history strategy of sympatric species, we may understand how they are able to coexist, as different strategies are expected to evolve in species that occupy similar niche space. Terrestrial isopods are a group in which multiple species frequently inhabit the same area. Notably, they are usually infected by Wolbachia Hertig, 1936, a notorious manipulator of the hosts’ reproductive processes. Thus, the aim of this study was to analyze the investment in reproduction in three sympatric and closely related species of terrestrial isopods: Atlantoscia floridana (Van Name, 1940), Atlantoscia inflata Campos-Filho and Araujo, 2015, and Atlantoscia petronioi Campos-Filho, Contreira and Lopes-Leitzke, 2012, only the latter being infected with Wolbachia. We showed that the presence of the bacteria seems not to affect the fitness of A. petronioi, because there was no clear difference in the reproductive output of infected and noninfected individuals. On the other hand, we observed that the three species possess alternative life-history strategies; that is, they differ in how much they invest in maintenance (body size) and reproductive effort. Such differences probably facilitate the species coexistence, reducing the competition among them.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".