EXPERIMENTAL CONFIRMATION THAT BODY SIZE DETERMINES MATE PREFERENCE VIA PHENOTYPE MATCHING IN A STICKLEBACK SPECIES PAIR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mate choice by phenotype matching, whereby individuals prefer a mate whose phenotype is similar to their own, should facilitate speciation with gene flow. This is because the genes that control mate signal (the phenotype being matched) also determine the preferred mate signal ("mate preference"). Speciation is made even easier if phenotype matching is based on a trait under divergent natural selection. In this case, assortative mating should readily evolve as a byproduct of divergent selection on the trait. Previous observational studies of assortative mating between sympatric, hybridizing threespine stickleback species (Gasterosteus aculeatus complex) suggested that phenotype matching might occur by body size, a trait under divergent natural selection. To test this, we used experimental manipulation of body size to rule out the effects of confounding variables. We found that size-manipulated benthic and limnetic stickleback females prefer mates whose body size more closely matches their own. It is thus likely that assortative mating by phenotype matching has facilitated the origin and persistence of benthic and limnetic threespine sticklebacks in the face of gene flow.
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".