Induced sterility illuminates the effects of reproduction on growth.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Reproductive Drain Hypothesis is a long-held and widespread idea that the energetic costs associated with reproduction drive growth deceleration in fish by appropriating energy previously allocated for somatic growth prior to maturity. This theoretical notion remains contentious and has been challenging to test given the difficulty of controlling reproduction in wild populations. In this study, we evaluated the Reproductive Drain Hypothesis by comparing the lifetime growth of sterile (i.e., triploid) walleye (Sander vitreus) with normal, fertile conspecifics co-occurring in the same ecosystem. We found the Lester biphasic growth model, a model developed specifically to incorporate the Reproductive Drain Hypothesis, failed to fit the growth patterns of sterile walleye (model weight = 0.081), and sterile walleyes were not larger than fertile ones. This evidence implies that reproduction may not limit energy available for somatic growth and presents an interesting challenge to this long-held concept. Alternatively, we hypothesize that individuals may increase food intake to meet the elevated energetic demands associated with reproduction, and that inheritance and metabolic theory may explain asymptotic growth in fish better than the Reproductive Drain 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".