Sexual conflict over habitat selection: the game and a test with small mammals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Sexual conflict arises when the evolutionary strategies of reproduction by one sex differ from those of the other. The differences in evolutionary strategies are often associated with sexually antagonistic selection and an arms war of adaptation and counter-adaptation between the sexes. The selection gradient will disappear, and resolve the conflict, if fitness trade-offs between the sexes allow them to achieve equal fitness. Questions: Does density-dependent habitat selection resolve sexual conflict? Can we use the sex ratio in a habitat to assess sexual conflict? Mathematical methods: Isodar theory, two-by-two matrix games, and computer simulation. Field methods: Manipulation of food supplements provided to a controlled population of meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus) living in rodent-proof interconnected field enclosures. Use of remote antennae to monitor habitat use by radio-frequency identification-tagged male and female voles. Key assumptions: Sexual conflict occurs in meadow voles. Relative use of interconnected habitat enclosures by male and female voles can evaluate habitat-dependent sexual conflict. All individuals have equal effects on resource consumption. Fitness is equalized between habitats by population density. Female fitness is increased by mate choice and reduced by male harassment. Male fitness depends on mating success and female fitness. Conclusions: When male and female fitness varies between habitats, density- and sexdependent habitat selection resolve sexual conflict. The sexual conflict game is typified by dominant strategies for both males and females that create local differences in sex ratio. Sex ratios of meadow voles using five enclosures confirmed the theory’s predictions. The local sex ratio was male biased (there were always more males using an enclosure than females) even though the global sex ratio was 1 : 1.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".