Testing the correlated response hypothesis for the evolution and maintenance of male mating preferences in <i>Drosophila serrata</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mate preferences are abundant throughout the animal kingdom with female preferences receiving the most empirical and theoretical attention. Although recent work has acknowledged the existence of male mate preferences, whether they have evolved and are maintained as a direct result of selection on males or indirectly as a genetically correlated response to selection for female choice remains an open question. Using the native Australian species Drosophila serrata in which mutual mate choice occurs for a suite of contact pheromones (cuticular hydrocarbons or CHCs), we empirically test key predictions of the correlated response hypothesis. First, within the context of a quantitative genetic breeding design, we estimated the degree to which the trait values favoured by male and female choice are similar both phenotypically and genetically. The direction of sexual selection on male and female CHCs differed statistically, and the trait combinations that maximized male and female mating success were not genetically correlated, suggesting that male and female preferences target genetically different signals. Second, despite detecting significant genetic variance in female preferences, we found no evidence for genetic variance in male preferences and, as a consequence, no detectable correlation between male and female mating preferences. Combined, these findings are inconsistent with the idea that male mate choice in D. serrata is simply a correlated response to female choice. Our results suggest that male and female preferences are genetically distinct traits in this species and may therefore have arisen via different evolutionary processes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".