Long‐term studies of bighorn sheep and mountain goats reveal fitness costs of reproduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fitness costs of reproduction are expected when resources are limited. Costs drive the evolution of life-history strategies and can affect population dynamics if females change their allocation of resources to reproduction. We studied fitness costs of reproduction in mountain ungulates in Alberta, Canada. We monitored two populations of bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) for 44 and 30 years, and one of mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus) for 30 years. Both species are highly iteroparous. Heterogeneity in individual reproductive potential makes fitness costs of reproduction difficult to detect and quantify without manipulations. In capital breeders, individual differences can be partly accounted for by considering body mass and other correlates of reproductive potential. Long-term monitoring can reveal costs that only manifest under stressful conditions such as disease or resource scarcity. Despite individual differences in reproductive potential, we detected fitness costs of reproduction in females. Costs, in terms of mass gain and survival, are almost entirely born by subsequent offspring, as mothers prioritize their own maintenance and survival. Costs are greater for primiparous females, decrease with increasing body mass and increase as resource availability declines, and sons are costlier than daughters. Costs may increase for senescent females that appear to reduce allocation to reproduction. In bighorn sheep, costs mostly involve reduced mass gain and lower survival of subsequent offspring. In mountain goats, costs include reductions in mass gain, subsequent fecundity and juvenile survival. In males, fitness costs derive mostly from attempts to reproduce rather than from siring success and likely depend upon individual competitiveness. In the absence of selective harvests, dominant males may enjoy high fitness and possibly lower costs compared to subordinates. The conservative reproductive tactic of mountain ungulate females likely explains why density dependence mostly involves later primiparity and lower recruitment, but rarely affects adult survival. Future research will seek to better account for heterogeneity in reproductive potential, assess cumulative reproductive costs and investigate the potential effects of fathers on maternal allocation tactics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".