Comparing fitness measures and the influence of age of first reproduction in Columbian ground squirrels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The timing of life-history traits may have strong influences on the evolution of life cycles and on population demography. This is especially true of the age at which females first reproduce (Cole’s principle). We examined whether the age at which females first reproduce influences fitness in Columbian ground squirrels (Urocitellus columbianus), for which females varied in the age at which they initially produce weaned offspring, from ages 1 through 5 years. With 148 females with complete known life spans in a 28-year data set, we examined four fitness measures: individual fitness (λ ind), individual fitness relative to the pattern of growth of the population (λ rel), lifetime reproductive success (LRS), and LRS relative to the total LRS for each female’s cohort (LRSrel). These metrics were calculated for offspring produced at the time of weaning and offspring that survived to emerge after their first hibernation period. Individual fitness (λ ind) was significantly associated with population growth during a female’s lifetime (λ Leslie; R2 = 0.523, P < 0.0001), indicating the need to adjust individual fitness for demonstrated changes in population growth and thus producing a relative individual fitness index (λ rel). We regressed λ rel on age at first reproduction, and found significant selection favoring earlier reproductive success (β ± SE = −0.20 ± 0.06; R2 = 0.306, P < 0.0001). When using an earlier (offspring at weaning) versus later (those that survived their first hibernation) measure of fecundity, we found that the latter introduced considerable variation, likely environmental, into the estimate of selection. This greatly weakened the regression of relative fitness on the age at first successful reproduction. LRS and LRSrel exhibited nonsignificant changes with age at first reproduction. Finally, those females that reproduced successfully at younger ages had similar litter sizes but significantly shorter life spans than females that matured when older, perhaps reflecting costs to early reproduction.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".