Male phenotype and sperm number in the guppy (<i>Poecilia reticulata</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The idea that female mate choice might be adaptive is relatively easy to understand in species with resource-based mating systems in which females gain access to a territory, food, or other forms of parental care from the males with whom they mate. In contrast, the evolution of female mate choice in species exhibiting resource-free mating systems remains controversial. One such species in which males contribute nothing but sperm during mating is the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Here, we examined whether female guppies can obtain information on male fertility (i.e., direct fertility benefits) via cues used during mate choice. Specifically, we examined whether male guppy colour patterns, body size, and mating behaviour signal their functional fertility, that is, their ability to supply a large number of sperm at copulation. We found significant correlations between male phenotype parameters and the number of sperm in male guppies originating from two wild Trinidadian populations. There were, however, significant interpopulation differences with respect to which traits were good predictors of sperm load. In the low-predation Paria River population, larger males and males with relatively more carotenoid colouration had significantly larger sperm loads, but mating behaviour (i.e., sigmoids) and melanin colouration were not good predictors of sperm load. In the high-predation Tacarigua River population, larger males, males that displayed more, and males with less yellow colouration had significantly more sperm, but other colour pattern components (area of orange and black colouration) were not good predictors of sperm load. Overall, our results suggest that there is the potential for direct fertility benefits through mate choice in the promiscuous, non-resource-based mating system of the guppy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".