MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159912677 · doi:10.1093/beheco/aru147

Comparing population level sexual selection in a species with alternative reproductive tactics

2014· article· en· W2159912677 on OpenAlexafffund
Karen M. Cogliati, Allison F. Mistakidis, Julie R. Marentette, Adrienne Lau, Benjamin M. Bolker, Bryan D. Neff, Sigal Balshine

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Ecology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologySexual selectionPopulationEcologyMatingCompetition (biology)ZoologyNest (protein structural motif)Mating systemReproductive successRange (aeronautics)Sperm competitionDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The description of a species' mating patterns is often based on observations from a single exemplar population; however, environmental variation can lead to variation in mating patterns and to differences in the strength of sexual selection among populations. In this study, we explored how resource distribution across a species' range affects competition and the strength of sexual selection in a northern and southern population of plainfin midshipman (Porichthys notatus), a species with 2 male reproductive tactics. Male plainfin midshipman can be guarders that compete for nest sites and court females, or sneakers that attempt to steal fertilizations from the guarder males during spawning. Males from the north population grow larger, suggesting that there might be more competition among males in the north. However, we found that the variance in body size and in nest availability were similar between populations, suggesting instead a similar degree of male-male competition. We found no significant population differences in reproductive success (north: 517 50 eggs/nest SE; south: 412 68 eggs/nest SE), paternity (north: 52%; south: 58% for the guarding male), or tactic frequencies (north: 88% guarders; south: 91% guarders). There was a marginally steeper Bateman gradient in the south population but no difference at 8 other measures of the strength of sexual selection between the 2 populations. Thus, despite a wide geographic distance, our results show remarkable conservation of mating patterns between the north and south populations of this benthic toadfish.

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 score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations17
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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