Neither Mating Rate Nor Spermatophore Feeding Influences Longevity in a Ladybird Beetle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Females of many species experience costs associated with mating. Seminal products, including nuptial gifts, may mitigate these mating costs or exacerbate them. For example, nuptial gifts derived from male accessory glands may transfer nutrition or potentially harmful seminal proteins to females. In this study, we assay the costs of multiple mating and the consumption of seminal products in a ladybird beetle. We compared longevity in females mated singly or multiply, while allowing or preventing spermatophore consumption at each mating. In order to distinguish a cost of mating per se from a cost of elevated reproduction, we prevented reproduction by using nutrient‐stressed females. Mating singly or multiply had no effect on female longevity, nor did spermatophore feeding influence longevity. The results imply, first, that intermediate mating rates do not directly harm females, though females may experience other indirect costs of mating (e.g. reduced foraging efficiency) or costs of reproduction; and second, that spermatophores transfer neither food nor directly harmful substances to female ladybirds.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".