Density‐dependent offspring interactions do not explain macroevolutionary scaling of adult size and offspring size
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most life forms exhibit a correlated evolution of adult size (AS) and size at independence (SI), giving rise to AS-SI scaling relationships. Theory suggests that scaling arises because relatively large adults have relatively high reproductive output, resulting in strong density-dependent competition in early life, where large size at independence provides a competitive advantage to juveniles. The primary goal of our study is to test this density hypothesis, using large datasets that span the vertebrate tree of life (fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals). Our secondary goal is to motivate new hypotheses for AS-SI scaling by exploring how subtle variation in life-histories among closely related species is associated with variation in scaling. Our phylogenetically informed comparisons do not support the density hypothesis. Instead, exploration of AS-SI scaling among life-history variants suggests that steeper AS-SI scaling slopes are associated with evolutionary increases in size at independence. We suggest that a positive association between size at independence and juvenile growth rate may represent an important mechanism underlying AS-SI scaling, a mechanism that has been underappreciated by theorists. If faster juvenile growth is a consequence of evolutionary increases in size at independence, this may help offset the cost of delayed maturation, leading to steeper AS-SI scaling slopes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".