Do intraspecific life history patterns follow interspecific predictions? A test using latitudinal variation in ringed seals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mammals adapted to unpredictable and low‐energy environments often evolve a “bet‐hedging” life history strategy characterized by less costly reproductive outputs over a longer and slower‐growing life. In contrast, species adapted to more predictable (i.e., low variation) and higher energy environments may evolve greater fecundity over a shorter and faster‐growing life. We tested whether this known interspecific pattern also occurs within a species. We compared life history traits of the ringed seal (Pusa hispida) in the Canadian High Arctic to those closer to the southern limit of the species' circumpolar distribution. We found that northern seals grew slower than southern seals (Brody growth coefficient), achieved a greater asymptotic body weight (82 and 69 kg vs. 74 and 54 kg female and male, respectively), reached sexual maturity later (6.1 years vs. 4.5 years), had lower fecundity (1.8 years vs. 1.3 years interbirth interval), longer average lifespan (5 years vs. 3 years median age), and greater movements (1,269 vs. 681 km). Mating systems also likely differed with northern seals showing morphological evidence of a promiscuous mating system with potential sperm competition as indicated by greater relative testes size. The northern region was also characterized by more unpredictable environmental timing of seasonal events, such as spring sea ice breakup. Life history variation between the intraspecific groups of seals appears to agree with interspecific patterns and provides a better understanding of how species' life history parameters shift in concert with environmental conditions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".