Mass Correlates With Increased Mating Success for Older but not Younger Males in Thornbug Treehoppers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many species, male mating success is often influenced by both age and mass. Because mass often increases with age, it can be difficult to disentangle their separate contributions to older male mating success. In species in which age and mass vary independently, it may be possible to determine the influence of mass on male reproductive success. For example, declines in residual reproductive value with age often result in older males increasing their reproductive effort. Mass may have an important influence on this relationship, if having greater mass provides an older male with a larger resource pool to invest in reproductive effort. Here, I evaluated the effect of mass on the reproductive success of males in an insect species in which age and mass are uncorrelated, but mass is highly variable within age classes. Female thornbug treehoppers [ Umbonia crassicornis (Amyot and Serville) (Hemiptera: Membracidae)] were given simultaneous choices of younger (22 d) and older (30 d) males under free-choice conditions. Both age and mass contributed to male mating success, but their effects were not additive. Older males had higher mating success than younger males, and among older males, heavier individuals obtained more matings. In contrast, mass did not influence younger male mating success. These findings suggest age and mass interact in their effects, and together provide heavier, older males with a significant mating advantage. Large mass may, therefore, represent an indicator of male courtship performance that is reliably revealed at older ages, which in turn may allow thornbug females to make more effective mating decisions.
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 | 0.001 | 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".