Mating stimulates female feeding: testing the implications for the evolution of nuptial gifts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nutritional benefits from nuptial gifts have been difficult to detect in some species, raising the question: what maintains nuptial feeding when gifts do not benefit females? The sensory trap hypothesis proposes that nuptial feeding may be explained by pre-existing sensory responses that predispose females to ingest gifts. Recent studies have shown that male seminal proteins can induce a nonspecific increase in female feeding after mating, which may represent a sensory trap for nuptial feeding if it results in increased intake of post-mating gifts. I tested these ideas using female beetles that ingest a spermatophore after mating. I show that males stimulate strongly increased female feeding post-mating. However, there was little evidence for dose dependence in the feeding response that could allow males to stimulate feeding beyond the female optimum. Moreover, the post-mating feeding response could not explain nuptial feeding: despite feeding more in general, newly mated females were less likely than nonmated females to ingest spermatophore gifts.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".