Fine‐scale population differences in Atlantic cod reproductive success: A potential mechanism for ecological speciation in a marine fish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Successful resource‐management and conservation outcomes ideally depend on matching the spatial scales of population demography, local adaptation, and threat mitigation. For marine fish with high dispersal capabilities, this remains a fundamental challenge. Based on daily parentage assignments of more than 4,000 offspring, we document fine‐scaled temporal differences in individual reproductive success for two spatially adjacent (<10 km) populations of a broadcast‐spawning marine fish. Distinguished by differences in genetics and life history, Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) from inner‐ and outer‐fjord populations were allowed to compete for mating and reproductive opportunities. After accounting for phenotypic variability in several traits, reproductive success of outer‐fjord cod was significantly lower than that of inner‐fjord cod. This finding, given that genomically different cod ecotypes inhabit inner‐ and outer‐fjord waters, raises the intriguing hypothesis that the populations might be diverging because of ecological speciation. Individual reproductive success, skewed within both sexes (more so among males), was positively affected by body size, which also influenced the timing of reproduction, larger individuals spawning later among females but earlier among males. Our work suggests that spatial mismatches between management and biological units exist in marine fishes and that studies of reproductive interactions between putative populations or ecotypes can provide an informative basis on which determination of the scale of local adaptation can be ascertained.
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 | 0.000 | 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".