Female multiple mating for fertility assurance in red flour beetles (<i>Tribolium castaneum</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The costs of mating with multiple partners include expenditure of energy and time and a reduction in lifespan, but females of many taxa mate with several different partners shortly after their first copulation. Often it is not clear what females gain from this behaviour. In this study, we used the red flour beetle (Tribolium castaneum Herbst, 1797) to test the hypothesis that females mate with multiple males for fertility assurance because the first copulation often does not lead to offspring production. We found that the probability of producing offspring, as measured by the proportion of females that produced offspring, was not affected by multiple mating when females were mated to virgin partners. However, when females were mated to nonvirgin partners, multiple mating led to an increased probability of producing offspring. To establish the mechanism through which multiple mating enhanced the probability of producing offspring, we further investigated whether this result was observed because multiple mating provided genetically compatible sperm or because it provided sufficient sperm. Viability of larvae from multiply mated females was higher than that of larvae from singly mated females, but the total number of adult offspring produced was not significantly different between the two groups. The capacity of males to inseminate females decreased in successive matings after the initial copulation, suggesting that ineffective copulations between virgin females and nonvirgin males are likely due to male sperm depletion. Therefore, mating with multiple males increased the probability that females would produce offspring and served as fertility assurance.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".