SEXUALLY ANTAGONISTIC COEVOLUTION IN A MATING SYSTEM: COMBINING EXPERIMENTAL AND COMPARATIVE APPROACHES TO ADDRESS EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We combined experimental and comparative techniques to study the evolution of mating behaviors within in a clade of 15 water striders (Gerris spp.). Superfluous multiple mating is costly to females in this group, and consequently there is overt conflict between the sexes over mating. Two alternative hypotheses that could generate interspecific variation in mating behaviors are tested: interspecific variation in optimal female mating rate versus sexually antagonistic coevolution of persistence and resistance traits. These potentially coevolving traits include male grasping and female antigrasping structures that further the interests of one sex over the other during premating struggles. Both processes are known to play a role in observed behavioral variation within species. We used two large sets of experiments to quantify behavioral differences among species, as well as their response to an environmentally (sex-ratio) induced change in optimal female mating rate. Our analysis revealed a large degree of continuous interspecific variation in all 20 quantified behavioral variables. Nevertheless, species shared the same set of behaviors, and each responded in a qualitatively similar fashion to sex-ratio alterations. A remarkably large proportion (> 50%) of all interspecific variation in the magnitude of behaviors, including their response to sex ratio, could be captured by a single multivariate axis. These data suggest tight coevolution of behaviors within a shared mating system. The pattern of correlated evolution was best accounted for by antagonistic coevolution in the relative abilities of each sex to control the outcome of premating struggles. In species where males have a relative advantage, mating activity is high, and the opposite is found in species where females have gained a relative advantage. Our analyses also suggested that evolution has been unconstrained by history, with no consistent evolutionary tendency toward or away from male or female relative advantage.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".