Evaluating the life-history trade-off between dispersal capability and reproduction in wing dimorphic insects: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A life-history trade-off exists between flight capability and reproduction in many wing dimorphic insects: a long-winged morph is flight-capable at the expense of reproduction, while a short-winged morph cannot fly, is less mobile, but has greater reproductive output. Using meta-analyses, I investigated specific questions regarding this trade-off. The trade-off in females was expressed primarily as a later onset of egg production and lower fecundity in long-winged females relative to short-winged females. Although considerably less work has been done with males, the trade-off exists for males among traits primarily related to mate acquisition. The trade-off can potentially be mitigated in males, as long-winged individuals possess an advantage in traits that can offset the costs of flight capability such as a shorter development time. The strength and direction of trends differed significantly among insect orders, and there was a relationship between the strength and direction of trends with the relative flight capabilities between the morphs. I discuss how the trade-off might be both under- and overestimated in the literature, especially in light of work that has examined two relevant aspects of wing dimorphic species: (1) the effect of flight-muscle histolysis on reproductive investment; and (2) the performance of actual flight by flight-capable individuals.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".