Data from: A multigenerational effect of parental age on offspring size but not fitness in common duckweed (Lemna minor)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Classic theories on the evolution of senescence make the simplifying assumption that all offspring are of equal quality, so that demographic senescence only manifests through declining rates of survival or fecundity. However, there is now evidence that, in addition to declining rates of survival and fecundity, many organisms are subject to age-related declines in the quality of offspring produced (i.e. parental age effects). Recent modelling approaches allow for the incorporation of parental age effects into classic demographic analyses, assuming that such effects are limited to a single generation. Does this ‘single-generation’ assumption hold? To find out, we conducted a laboratory study with the aquatic plant Lemna minor, a species for which parental age effects have been demonstrated previously. We compared the size and fitness of 423 lab-cultured plants (asexually-derived ramets) representing various birth orders, and ancestral ‘birth-order genealogies’. We found that offspring size and fitness both declined with increasing ‘immediate’ birth order (i.e. birth order with respect to the immediate parent), but only offspring size was affected by ancestral birth order. Thus, the assumption that parental age effects on offspring fitness are limited to a single generation does in fact hold for L. minor. This result will guide theorists aiming to refine and generalise modelling approaches that incorporate parental age effects into evolutionary theory on senescence.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".