Sexual Selection for Male Mobility in a Giant Insect with Female‐Biased Size Dimorphism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Female-biased size dimorphism, in which females are larger than males, is prevalent in many animals. Several hypotheses have been developed to explain this pattern of dimorphism. One of these hypotheses, the mobility hypothesis, suggests that female-biased size dimorphism arises because smaller males are favored in scramble competition for mates. Using radiotelemetry, we assessed the mobility hypothesis in the Cook Strait giant weta (Deinacrida rugosa), a species with strong female-biased size dimorphism, and tested the prediction that male traits promoting mobility (i.e., longer legs, smaller bodies) are useful in scramble competition for mates and thus promote reproductive success. Our predictions were supported: males with longer legs and smaller bodies exhibited greater mobility (daily linear displacement when not mating), and more mobile males had greater insemination success. No phenotypic traits predicted female mobility or insemination success. In species with female-biased size dimorphism, sexual selection on males is often considered to be weak compared to species in which males are large or possess weaponry. We found that male giant weta experience sexual selection intensities on par with males of a closely related harem-defending polygynous species, likely because of strong scramble competition with other males.
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) | 0.001 | 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".