Individual heterogeneity in fitness in a long-lived herbivore
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heterogeneity in the intrinsic quality and nutritional condition of individuals affects reproductive success and consequently fitness. Understanding differences in energy allocation towards survival and reproduction within and among years might help explain variability in individual fitness. Black brant (Branta bernicla nigricans) are long-lived, migratory, specialist herbivores. Long migratory pathways and short summer breeding seasons constrain the time and energy available for reproduction, thus magnifying life-history trade-offs. These constraints, combined with long lifespans and trade-offs between current and future reproductive value, provide a model system to examine the role of individual heterogeneity in driving life-history strategies and individual heterogeneity in fitness. We used hierarchical Bayesian models to examine reproductive trade-offs, modeling the relationships between within-year measures of reproductive energy allocation and among-year demographic rates of individual females breeding on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska using capture-recapture and reproductive data from 1988 to 2014. We provide evidence for relationships between breeding probability and clutch size (posterior mean of β = 0.45, 95% CRI = 0.33 – 0.57, SD = 0.06), breeding probability and nest initiation date (posterior mean of β = -0.12, 95% CRI = -0.2 ¬– -0.04, SD = 0.04), and an interaction between clutch size and initiation date (posterior mean of β = -0.12, 95% CRI = -0.2 – -0.04, SD = 0.04). Average lifetime clutch size also had a weak positive relationship with survival probability (posterior mean of β = 0.03, 95% CRI = -0.01 – 0.7, SD = 0.02). Our results support the use of demographic buffering strategies for black brant; reductions in reproductive energy allocation preserve high adult survival rates during years with poor environmental conditions, maximizing future reproductive value. We also indirectly show links among environmental conditions during growth, fitness, and energy allocation, highlighting the effects of early growth conditions on individual heterogeneity, and subsequently, reproductive investment.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".