MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Diet‐dependent female evolution influences male lifespan in a nuptial feeding insect

2009· article· en· W1985880113 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Matthew D. Hall, Luc F. Bussière, Robert C. Brooks

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evolutionary Biology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAustralian Research CouncilUniversity of New South Wales
KeywordsBiologySexual conflictOffspringMatingReproductionEcologyZoologySexual selectionReproductive successCricketAntagonistic CoevolutionSpermatophoreSex allocationDemographyPopulationPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Theory predicts that lifespan will depend on the dietary intake of an individual, the allocation of resources towards reproduction and the costs imposed by the opposite sex. Although females typically bear the majority of the cost of offspring production, nuptial feeding invertebrates provide an ideal opportunity to examine the extent to which reproductive interactions through gift provisioning impose a cost on males. Here we use experimental evolution in an Australian ground cricket to assess how diet influences male lifespan and how the costs of mating evolve for males. Our findings show that males had significantly shorter lifespans in populations that adapted to a low-quality diet and that this divergence is driven by evolutionary change in how females interact with males over reproduction. This suggests that the extent of sexual conflict over nuptial feeding may be under-realized by focusing solely on the consequences of reproductive interactions from the female's perspective.

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 score0.539
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations19
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evolutionary BiologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207