Do female frogs have higher resting metabolic rates than males? A case study with <i>Xenopus allofraseri</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The energetic costs of body maintenance can have a profound influence on the energy that an individual can allocate to other functions such as growth, locomotion, or reproduction. Therefore, resting metabolism can ultimately affect an individual's survival or reproductive success, especially when food is limited. Although males and females often differ in their body composition (e.g. sex organs and fat accumulation) and body size, the occurrence and direction of sexual dimorphism in resting metabolism remains poorly understood in anurans. In the present study, we investigated whether males and females of the false Fraser's clawed frog Xenopus allofraseri differ in their resting metabolic rates. We used an open‐flow push‐through respirometry system to measure the volume of carbon dioxide (VCO2) produced by animals at rest. Variation in was explained by ambient temperature, body size, and sex. For a similar body size, our results revealed that females had about a 50% higher resting metabolic rate (RMR) than males. We suggest that the enhanced investment in gamete production in females compared to males may explain this difference. We further suggest that a lower RMR in males compared to females at similar body size could be selectively advantageous as unallocated energy may be devoted to costly mating, in support of the ‘compensation’ hypothesis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".