Effect of rearing density on female investment in reproduction and melanotic encapsulation response in the sand cricket (<i>Gryllus firmus</i>) (Orthoptera: Gryllidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The density-dependent prophylaxis hypothesis posits that because pathogens are expected to be transmitted among conspecifics in crowded conditions, individuals living in such conditions should minimize their chance of infection and maximize survival by elevating their baseline immunity. Further, if individuals developing in crowded conditions indeed allocate more resources to immunity then resource allocation to other life-history traits, such as reproduction, should decline. We tested these hypotheses by rearing sand crickets (Gryllus firmus) at either low or high density in the laboratory and quantified immune function (melanotic encapsulation response) and reproductive investment (ovary mass, egg size) at adulthood. The results did not support the density-dependent prophylaxis hypothesis, but we did find that rearing density significantly affected investment in two reproductive traits, with average ovary mass and egg size both being larger in low-density crickets. We discuss possible explanations for the lack of a trade-off between immunity and reproduction in our study.
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) | 0.002 | 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".