Field estimates of fitness costs of the pace‐of‐life in an endangered damselfly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theory predicts that within-population differences in the pace-of-life can lead to cohort splitting and produce marked intraspecific variation in body size. Although many studies showed that body size is positively correlated with fitness, many argue that selection for the larger body is counterbalanced by opposing physiological and ecological selective mechanisms that favour smaller body. When a population split into cohorts with different paces of life (slow or fast cohort), one would expect to detect the fitness-size relationship among and within cohorts, that is, (a) slower-developing cohort has larger body size and higher fitness than faster-developing cohort, and (b) larger individuals within each cohort show higher fitness than smaller individuals. Here, we test these hypotheses in capture-mark-recapture field surveys that assess body size, lifespan, survival and lifetime mating success in two consecutive generations of a partially bivoltine aquatic insect, Coenagrion mercuriale, where the spring cohort is slower-developing than the autumn cohort. As expected, body size was larger in the slow-developing cohort, which is consistent with the temperature-size rule and also with the duration of development. Body size seasonal variation was greater in slow-developing cohort most likely because of the higher variation in age at maturity. Concordant with theory, survival probability, lifespan and lifetime mating success were higher in the slow-developing cohort. Moreover, individual body size was positively correlated with survival and mating success in both cohorts. Our study confirms the fitness costs of fast pace-of-life and the benefits of larger body size to adult fitness.
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 | 0.000 | 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".