Terminal reproductive investment in male Eastern Gray Treefrogs (<i>Dryophytes versicolor</i>, Anura: Hylidae) is a marathon not a sprint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The idea that greater investment in current reproductive events reduces future survival is fundamental to our understanding of life history evolution. The terminal investment hypothesis proposes that individuals with limited future reproductive opportunities will invest more time and energy into the current reproductive event. We tested this hypothesis in male Eastern Gray Treefrogs (Dryophytes versicolor LeConte 1825) predicting that larger, older males will spend more time at the breeding pond and lose a greater percentage of their body mass over the entirety of the breeding season. We found a positive correlation between male size and the number of nights males attended the breeding pond; males that attended the pond more often also lost more weight over the breeding season. Lastly, larger older males extended their breeding season by remaining at the pond later in the season, rather than arriving earlier. Moreover, males that invested more in reproduction were less likely to be recaptured the following year. These results suggest that older males invest more in reproduction than younger males and pay a cost in terms of future survival, which is consistent with the terminal investment hypothesis.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".