Resolving variation in the reproductive tradeoff between sperm size and number
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spermatozoa are amongst the most variable cells, and three factors are thought to account for this variation in design: fertilization mode, phylogeny, and postcopulatory sexual selection. In addition, it has long been assumed that a tradeoff exists between sperm size and number, and although postcopulatory sexual selection affects both traits, empirical evidence for a tradeoff has so far been elusive. Our recent theoretical model predicts that the nature of a direct tradeoff between sperm size and number varies with sperm competition mechanism and sperm competition risk. We test these predictions using a comparative approach in two very different taxa with different sperm competition mechanisms: passerine birds (mechanism: simple raffle) and Drosophila fruit flies (sperm displacement). We show that in both groups, males increase their total ejaculate investment with increasing sperm competition risk, but whereas passerine birds allocate disproportionately to sperm number, drosophilids allocate disproportionately to sperm size. This striking difference between the two groups can be at least partly explained by sperm competition mechanisms depending on sperm size relative to the size of the female reproductive tract: in large animals (passerines), sperm numbers are advantageous in sperm competition owing to dilution inside the female tract, whereas in small animals (drosophilids), large sperm are advantageous for physical competition (sperm displacement). Our study provides two important results. First, we provide convincing evidence for the existence of a sperm size-number tradeoff. Second, we show that by considering both sperm competition mechanism and dilution, can we account for variation in sperm size between different taxa.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".