Conspicuous Coloration in Males of the Damselfly Nehalennia irene (Zygoptera: Coenagrionidae): Do Males Signal Their Unprofitability to Other Males?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In damselflies, sexual colour dimorphism is commonly explained as a consequence of selection on traits that increase male attractiveness to females. However, while many species in the damselfly family Coenagrionidae (Insecta: Odonata) are sexually dimorphic, the males do not engage in displays, and male competition for mates resembles a "scramble". An alternative explanation for the sexual differences in coloration within these species is that sexual dimorphism has evolved as a sex-related warning signal, with males signalling their uprofitability as mates to other males, thereby avoiding harassment from conspecifics. We evaluated an underlying assumption of the theory that male-male harassment rate is influenced by colour by comparing harassment of males of the species Nehalennia irene that had been painted to make them appear: (i) similar to an unaltered male (blue), (ii) different from a male (orange) and (iii) more similar to a female (black). When caged together we found that blue-painted males experienced significantly lower harassment than black-painted males. When unpainted males were caged with each type of painted male we found that blue-painted males and the unpainted males housed in the same cages experienced lower rates of harassment than males housed in cages where some males were painted black, suggesting that a single, reliable signal of unprofitability may benefit the individuals that carry it. While our results do not in themselves demonstrate that sexual colour dimorphism originally evolved as an intra-specific warning signal, they do show that harassment is influenced by coloration, and that such selection could conceivably maintain male coloration as a warning signal.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".