Effects of age on sperm quality metrics in endangered Mississippi gopher frogs (<i>Lithobates sevosus</i>) from captive populations used for controlled propagation and reintroduction efforts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A decline in sperm quality with age is a common prediction of senescence-based hypotheses and empirical studies. While widely studied across taxa, there is little known on the effect of ageing on sperm quality in amphibians, especially in captive populations used for controlled propagation and reintroduction efforts. Here, we investigated variation in sperm quality metrics (i.e., motility, concentration, and morphology) in the endangered Mississippi gopher frog (Lithobates sevosus) among males of three age categories using individuals from captive breeding populations housed at three different zoological institutions. Different aged males across the species expectant lifespan (1-9, 1-2, 3-4, and 8-9-year-old subcategories) were chosen in an attempt to identify an optimal breeding age relevant for captive breeding programs. Moreover, we explored and statistically controlled for potential differences in sperm quality which may be attributed to the type of induction hormones and source populations that differed among institutions. Results indicated that males of different ages did not differ in sperm motility or concentration. However, we did find that older males (8-9 years old) had significantly longer sperm than other age categories and younger males (1-2 years old) had significantly more atypical sperm than other age categories. Furthermore, we found no significant differences in any sperm quality metrics between the different induction hormones or source populations used at the different institutions. Within a captive breeding program, this information is especially valuable as our results indicate that males that have only recently sexually matured may not be ready to breed, while older males maintain sperm quality metrics presumably related to fertilization success.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".