Female-limited polymorphism in a widespread damselfly: morph frequencies, male density, and phenotypic similarity of andromorphs to males
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In several animal species, one male type coexists with two to several female types, a polymorphism often explained in the context of sexual selection. Where it occurs, one female morph typically resembles the conspecific male phenotype, but the degree of resemblance varies across species. Here, we question whether the degree of phenotypic similarity between male-like females and males varies within species. Phenotypic resemblance is hypothesized to depend on the potential for frequency- and density-dependent selection on male and (or) female phenotypes. We studied six populations of the damselfly Nehalennia irene (Hagen, 1861) that differed widely in estimates of morph frequency and male density. Male-like females resemble males more than another female type resembles males, across populations, when comparisons are based on abdominal patterns. Abdomen phenotype does matter in male–female interactions of damselflies. Furthermore, male-like females were more similar to males at low and high density sites compared with sites with intermediate densities, contrary to the hypothesis that the potential for male harassment influences the degree of phenotypic similarity. Additionally, male-like females of most populations converged on the abdominal phenotype of males of one population rather than on that of syntopic males; a problem that has not received any attention.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".