A behavioral syndrome linking courtship behavior toward males and females predicts reproductive success from a single mating in the hissing cockroach, Gromphadorhina portentosa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Suites of correlated behaviors, or “behavioral syndromes,” have been shown to occur throughout the animal kingdom. Behavioral syndromes involving sexual selection are expected to have significant evolutionary ramifications, but few studies have linked behavioral syndromes to sexual selection. We measured the behavior of male hissing cockroaches (Gromphadorhina portentosa) during male–male competition, female choice, and 3 other ecologically relevant contexts and quantified between-context correlations in behavior. We found that aggression directed toward an opponent and retreat and courtship elicited from an opponent were repeatable among males, suggesting that individuals exhibit stable behavioral types in the context of male–male interaction. Our analyses also revealed a “fast–slow” syndrome, linking behavior in a self-righting context to behavior in a foraging context. In contrast to data from several other species, fast–slow scores in hissing cockroaches were not correlated with aggression in a male–male context. Finally, we identified a new type of behavioral syndrome, which we call “libido.” Libido was defined by a positive relationship between courtship directed toward opponents in a male–male context and courtship directed toward potential mating partners in a male–female context. Among males that copulated, libido scores predicted reproductive success. We conclude that the libido syndrome, coupled with sexual selection favoring high courtship intensity in a male–female context, may be responsible for the persistence of male–male courtship behavior in this population.
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".