Life in the fast lane: Revisiting the fast growth—High survival paradigm during the early life stages of fishes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early life survival is critical to successful replenishment of fish populations, and hypotheses developed under the Growth-Survival Paradigm (GSP) have guided investigations of controlling processes. The GSP postulates that recruitment depends on growth and mortality rates during early life stages, as well as their duration, after which the mortality declines substantially. The GSP predicts a shift in the frequency distribution of growth histories with age towards faster growth rates relative to the initial population because slow-growing individuals are subject to high mortality (via starvation and predation). However, mortality data compiled from 387 cases published in 153 studies (1971–2022) showed that the GSP was only supported in 56% of cases. Selection against slow growth occurred in two-thirds of field studies, leaving a non-negligible fraction of cases showing either an absence of or inverse growth-selective survival, suggesting the growth-survival relationship is more complex than currently considered within the GSP framework. Stochastic simulations allowed us to assess the influence of key intrinsic and extrinsic factors on the characteristics of surviving larvae and identify knowledge gaps on the drivers of variability in growth-selective survival. We suggest caution when interpreting patterns of growth selection because changes in variance and autocorrelation of individual growth rates among cohorts can invalidate fundamental GSP assumptions. We argue that breakthroughs in recruitment research require a comprehensive, population-specific characterization of the role of predation and intrinsic factors in driving variability in the distribution and autocorrelation of larval growth rates, and of the life stage corresponding to the endpoint of pre-recruited life.
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 | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".