Sexual dimorphism in trophic morphology and feeding behavior of wolf spiders (Araneae: Lycosidae) as a result of differences in reproductive roles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual dimorphism in animals is thought to be a result of differences between the sexes in the relationship between reproductive success and a trait, or a result of intersexual niche divergence. Intersexual niche divergence occurs as a result of competition between the sexes and is generally inferred from sexual dimorphism in morphological features associated with feeding. However, differences between the sexes in trophic morphology can be a result of either intersexual niche divergence or differences in the relationship between foraging success and reproduction between the sexes. In this study we examined sex differences in the trophic morphology of six wolf spider species and in the feeding behavior of two of these species. Females were larger than males in almost all characteristics even after differences in body size were accounted for, and killed and consumed more prey. We found little evidence of intersexual niche divergence based on differences in the relative prey sizes preferred by males and females of two species. Our data suggest that differences in the reproductive roles of males and females have resulted in foraging success being more important for female fitness than for male fitness and that differences in reproductive roles can result in sexual dimorphism.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".