A novel method of comparing mating success and survival reveals similar sexual and viability selection for mobility traits in female tree crickets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between sexual and viability selection in females is necessarily different than that in males, as investment in sexual traits potentially comes at the expense of both fecundity and survival. Accordingly, females do not usually invest in sexually selected traits. However, direct benefits obtained from mating, such as nuptial gifts, may encourage competition among females and subsidize investment into sexually selected traits. We compared sexual and viability selection on female tree crickets Oecanthus nigricornis, a species where females mate frequently to obtain nuptial gifts and sexual selection on females is likely. If male choice determines female mating success in this species, we expect sexual selection for fecundity traits, as males of many species prefer more fecund females. Alternatively, intrasexual scramble or combat competition on females may select for larger jumping legs or wider heads (respectively). We estimated mating success in wild caught crickets using microsatellite analysis of stored sperm and estimated relative viability by comparing surviving female O. nigricornis to those captured by a common wasp predator. In support of the scramble competition hypothesis, we found sexual selection for females with larger hind legs and narrower heads. We also found stabilizing viability selection for intermediate head width and hind leg size. As predicted, traits under viability and sexual selection were very similar, and the direction of that selection was not opposing. However, because the shape of sexual and viability selection differs, these episodes of selection may favour slightly different trait sizes.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".