Are indirect genetic benefits associated with polyandry? Testing predictions in a natural population of lemon sharks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple mating has clear fitness benefits for males, but uncertain benefits and costs for females. We tested for indirect genetic benefits of polyandry in a natural population, by using data from a long-term genetic and demographic study of lemon sharks (Negaprion brevirostris) at Bimini, Bahamas. To do so, we followed the fates of individuals from six cohorts (450 age-0 and 254 age-1 fish) in relation to their individual level of genetic variation, and whether they were from polyandrous or monoandrous litters. We find that offspring from polyandrous litters did not have a greater genetic diversity or greater survival than did the offspring of monoandrous litters. We also find no evidence of positive associations between individual offspring genetic diversity metrics and our surrogate measure of fitness (i.e. survival). In fact, age-1 individuals with fewer heterozygous microsatellite loci and more genetically similar parents were more likely to survive to age-2. Thus, polyandry in female lemon sharks does not appear to be adaptive from the perspective of indirect genetic benefits to offspring. It may instead be the result of convenience polyandry, whereby females mate multiply to avoid harassment by males. Our inability to find indirect genetic benefits of polyandry despite detailed pedigree and survival information suggests the need for similar assessments in other natural populations.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".