MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922427434 · doi:10.1139/cjz-2019-0019

Seasonal and annual variations in egg mass and clutch size for Loggerhead Sea Turtles (<i>Caretta caretta</i>): experienced females lay heavier eggs

2019· article· en· W2922427434 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hideo Hatase, Kazuyoshi Omuta

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurtle Biology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyAvian clutch sizeRookerySemelparity and iteroparityEcologyPopulationSeasonalityZoologyTemperate climateReproductionDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Organisms modify reproductive traits adaptively or non-adaptively in response to temporal environmental variation. Long-lived iteroparous sea turtles are ideal animals to examine such temporal shifts in resource allocation. We analyzed seasonal shifts in egg mass and clutch size for Loggerhead Sea Turtles (Caretta caretta (Linnaeus, 1758)) nesting at a temperate rookery (Yakushima Island, Japan) over a 2-year period, as well as annual variation in egg mass and clutch size over a 5-year period. Egg mass and clutch size, adjusted for female body size, did not vary seasonally at both the population and individual levels. Adjusted egg mass showed significant annual variation, despite a lack of annual variation in adjusted clutch size. Thus, Loggerhead Sea Turtles are unlikely to exhibit adaptive seasonal variation in reproductive traits, whereas they vary egg size non-adaptively in response to annual environmental conditions. Although experienced Loggerhead Sea Turtles laid heavier eggs, the annual variation in egg mass was not attributable either to breeding experience of the sampled females or to ambient temperature during follicular development, implying that other factors are involved, such as resource availability. Our data show that egg size is a more plastic reproductive trait than clutch size for Loggerhead Sea Turtles inhabiting the North Pacific.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicTurtle Biology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207