The effects of sexual selection on life‐history traits: an experimental study on guppies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual selection is often prevented during captive breeding in order to maximize effective population size and retain genetic diversity. However, enforcing monogamy and thereby preventing sexual selection may affect population fitness either negatively by preventing the purging of deleterious mutations or positively by reducing sexual conflicts. To better understand the effect of sexual selection on the fitness of small populations, we compared components of female fitness and the expression of male secondary sexual characters in 19 experimental populations of guppies (Poecilia reticulata) maintained under polygamous or monogamous mating regimes over nine generations. In order to generate treatments that solely differed by their level of sexual selection, the middle-class neighbourhood breeding design was enforced in the monogamous populations, while in the polygamous populations, all females contributed similarly to the next generation with one male and one female offspring. This experimental design allowed potential sexual conflicts to increase in the polygamous populations because selection could not operate on adult-female traits. Clutch size and offspring survival showed a weak decline from generation to generation but did not differ among treatments. Offspring size, however, declined across generations, but more in monogamous than polygamous populations. By generation eight, orange- and black-spot areas were larger in males from the polygamous treatment, but these differences were not statistically significant. Overall, these results suggest that neither sexual conflict nor the purging of deleterious mutation had important effects on the fitness of our experimental populations. However, only few generations of enforced monogamy in a benign environment were sufficient to negatively affect offspring size, a trait potentially crucial for survival in the wild. Sexual selection may therefore, under certain circumstances, be beneficial over enforced monogamy during captive breeding.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".