Consequences of nest site selection vary along a tidal gradient
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parents providing care must sometimes choose between rearing locations that are most favourable for offspring versus those that are most favourable for themselves. Here, we measured how both parental and offspring performance varied in nest sites distributed along an environmental gradient. The plainfin midshipman fish Porichthys notatus nests along a tidal gradient. When ascending from the subtidal to the high intertidal at low tide, both nest temperature and frequency of air exposure increase. We used one lab and two field experiments to investigate how parental nest site choices across tidal elevations are linked to the physiological costs incurred by parents and the developmental benefits accrued by offspring. Under warmer incubation conditions, simulating high intertidal nests, offspring developed faster but had higher mortality rates compared to those incubated in cooler conditions that mimicked subtidal nests. In the field, males in higher intertidal nests were more active caregivers, but their young still died at the fastest rates. Larger males claimed and retained low intertidal nests, where offspring survival and development rates were also highest. Our results suggest that males compete more intensively for nest sites in the low intertidal, where they can raise their young quickly and with lower per-offspring investments. Smaller, less-competitive males forced into higher intertidal sites nest earlier in the season and provide more active parental care, possibly to bolster brood survival under harsh 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".