Inbreeding avoidance in aphidophagous ladybird beetles: a case study in <i>Menochilus</i> <i>sexmaculatus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relatedness among mates affects reproductive performance in insects. Previous studies indicate that laboratory rearing of a closed population leads to a decline in fitness owing to inbreeding depression. Although females possess the ability to discriminate against unsuitable males, it is not clear whether they have the ability to bias paternity against related males. We investigated whether the zig-zag ladybird beetle (Menochilus sexmaculatus (Fabricius, 1781)) (Coleoptera Coccinellidae) has evolved mechanisms to avoid inbreeding. We performed mating disruption experiments among two lines of inbred and outbred individuals and assessed whether mating behaviour (including mating duration and mate guarding) and reproductive performance were affected. Results indicate that females delay the onset of copula when paired with inbred individuals. Decreased fecundity and percent egg viability following mating with inbred mate is indicative of cost of inbreeding. As trends of spermatophore transfer are similar in inbred and outbred pairs, we assume that females modify their reproductive performance when mated with inbred males. Thus, our study reveals that mating with relatives is likely avoided by females, thus preventing inbreeding depression.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".