Mutual mate choice by mountain pine beetles: size‐dependence but not size‐assortative mating
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Mutual mate choice may be rare, occurring when both sexes invest heavily in reproduction, mating opportunities are abundant, and individuals differ in quality. 2. Mountain pine beetles, Dendroctonus ponderosae (Curculionidae: Scolytinae) appear to meet the conditions for mutual mate choice. We introduced males to females in breeding sites and observed the occurrence and speed of a male entering a female's gallery. We tested for consequences of mutual mate choice, namely condition‐dependent choosiness and assortative mating. 3. Males were more likely to enter a female's gallery when the gallery was in a smaller tree with less resin production and when the gallery was larger. Female body size and condition did not influence the probability of entry. Larger males were less likely to enter a gallery than were smaller males, probably because of size‐dependent choosiness rather than physical limitations. 4. Small males took longer to enter galleries of large females than of small females, whereas large males entered as quickly into galleries of large females as small females. This suggests size‐dependent choosiness by females. 5. No assortative mating by body size was detected, probably because males appeared to choose on the basis of female‐associated resources rather than on female traits.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".