Body Morphology, Energy Stores, and Muscle Enzyme Activity Explain Cricket Acoustic Mate Attraction Signaling Variation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High mating success in animals is often dependent on males signalling attractively with high effort. Since males should be selected to maximize their reproductive success, female preferences for these traits should result in minimal signal variation persisting in the population. However, extensive signal variation persists. The genic capture hypothesis proposes genetic variation persists because fitness-conferring traits depend on an individual's basic processes, including underlying physiological, morphological, and biochemical traits, which are themselves genetically variable. To explore the traits underlying signal variation, we quantified among-male differences in signalling, morphology, energy stores, and the activities of key enzymes associated with signalling muscle metabolism in two species of crickets, Gryllus assimilis (chirper: <20 pulses/chirp) and G. texensis (triller: >20 pulses/chirp). Chirping G. assimilis primarily fuelled signalling with carbohydrate metabolism: smaller individuals and individuals with increased thoracic glycogen stores signalled for mates with greater effort; individuals with greater glycogen phosphorylase activity produced more attractive mating signals. Conversely, the more energetic trilling G. texensis fuelled signalling with both lipid and carbohydrate metabolism: individuals with increased β-hydroxyacyl-CoA dehydrogenase activity and increased thoracic free carbohydrate content signalled for mates with greater effort; individuals with higher thoracic and abdominal carbohydrate content and higher abdominal lipid stores produced more attractive signals. Our findings suggest variation in male reproductive success may be driven by hidden physiological trade-offs that affect the ability to uptake, retain, and use essential nutrients, although the results remain correlational in nature. Our findings indicate that a physiological perspective may help us to understand some of the causes of variation in behaviour.
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".