MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1928386525 · doi:10.1111/evo.12580

Territory defense as a condition-dependent component of male reproductive success in<i>Drosophila serrata</i>

2014· article· en· W1928386525 on OpenAlexafffund
Alison White, Howard D. Rundle

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyTerritorialitySexual selectionMatingMate choiceSex pheromoneZoologyReproductive successInbreedingReproductive isolationMating preferencesPheromoneCompetition (biology)Evolutionary biologyScramble competitionEcologyDemographyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sexual selection arises from both intrasexual competition and mate choice. With respect to the evolution of male traits, there is a vast literature documenting the existence of female choice and male-male competition, and both have been shown to co-occur in many species. Despite numerous studies of these two components of male reproductive success in isolation, few have investigated whether and how they interact to determine total sexual selection. To address this, we investigate male territoriality in Drosophila serrata, a species in which female preference for male sexual pheromones (cuticular hydrocarbons or CHCs) have been extensively studied. We demonstrate that territoriality occurs, that it involves direct male-male aggressive interactions, and that it contributes to variation in male mating success. Results from a phenotypic manipulation also indicate that territorial success is condition-dependent, although a genetic manipulation of condition, involving three generations of full-sib inbreeding, failed to find a significant effect. Finally, selection assays also suggest that territorial success depends on male body size but not on CHCs, whereas the opposite is true for mating success.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.735
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.194 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207