Influence of alternative mating tactics on predation risk in the damselfly Calopteryx virgo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alternative mating tactics are a widespread feature in insects. A typical form of alternative mating behaviour is being a sneaker in the vicinity of a territorial male. Such nonterritorial males have lower mating success, but they may benefit from lower energetic costs and decreased predation risk. In this study, we examined whether nonterritorial male damselflies Calopteryx virgo (L., 1758) are subject to lower predation risk than territorial males. To distinguish predation from other sources of mortality, we used models. The experiment consisted of dried male damselflies settled into the typical perching positions of territorial and nonterritorial males. Also the spatiotemporal patterns of predation risk were studied. The survival of nonterritorial male models was consistently higher than that of territorial male models, which can be attributed to different predation risk. Survival of the models was lower in the presence of avian predators and in large populations. Survival rates were affected by habitat type but did not change during the season. We conclude that nonterritorial male damselflies are less vulnerable to predation and that there may be a trade-off which could potentially make the fitness of sneakers equal to that of territorial males.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".