MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140881081 · doi:10.1093/beheco/arn042

Contemporary sexual selection on sexually dimorphic traits in the ambush bug Phymata americana

2008· article· en· W2140881081 on OpenAlexafffund
David Punzalan, F. Helen Rodd, Locke Rowe

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Ecology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsBiologySexual dimorphismSexual selectionSelection (genetic algorithm)ZoologyEvolutionary biologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sexual selection is a potent evolutionary force often invoked to explain observed cases of sexual dimorphism. However, evidence of this process operating on existing phenotypic variation is limited. We investigated whether sexual selection could account for sexual dimorphism in size and color pattern in the ambush bug <it>Phymata americana</it>. We considered the alternative hypothesis that dimorphism merely reflects sex differences in habitat use but found no evidence of sex differences in microhabitat during 2 sampling periods in the wild. Although the form of sexual (phenotypic) selection on male lateral color pattern varied between samples, selection consistently favored lateral coloration in males but not size. For females, weight was a consistent predictor of mating status in both the early and the late season. We performed 2 separate laboratory studies to investigate potential proximate mechanisms of sexual selection that might account for the field data. Although we found that male weight predicted male success in direct male–male competition and male courtship intensity predicted success in male–female interactions, we did not detect any role of male color pattern in either laboratory study. These data suggest that visual signaling is unlikely to play a role in the evolution of color pattern dimorphism in this species. Consistent with the field data, our laboratory results also found that female weight predicted the probability of copulation, possibly indicating that female receptivity coincides with female reproductive cycle (i.e., egg maturation).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.306
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.186 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral EcologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207