Modelling the impacts of male alternative reproductive tactics on population dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Observations of male alternative reproductive tactics (ARTs) in a variety of species have stimulated the development of mathematical models that can account for the evolution and stable coexistence of multiple male phenotypes. However, little attention has been given to the population dynamic consequences of ARTs. We present a population model that takes account of the existence of two male ARTs (guarders and sneakers), assuming that tactic frequencies are environmentally determined and tactic reproductive success depends on the densities of both types. The presence of sneakers typically increases overall population density. However, if sneakers comprise a sufficiently large proportion of the population—or, equivalently, if guarders are sufficiently rare—then it is possible for the total population to crash to extinction (in this extreme regime, there is also an Allee effect, i.e. a threshold density below which the population will go extinct). We apply the model to the example of the invasive round goby (Neogobius melanostomus). We argue that ARTs can dramatically influence population dynamics and suggest that considering such phenotypic plasticity in population models is potentially important, especially for species of conservation or commercial importance.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".