Food limitation causes female haglids to mate more often
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual conflict over mating rate has selected for male adaptations to induce females to mate. These inducements can be either coercive or enticing, and there is a growing realization that males of a given species may employ both tactics simultaneously to acquire mating success. Insects in the genus Cyphoderris Uhler, 1864 (Orthoptera: Haglidae) have a unique breeding system in which females feed on the fleshy hind wings of males during copulation, but as mating proceeds males use a specialized abdominal pinching organ known as a gin trap to hold the female until she copulates with him. Previous research has demonstrated the coercive nature of the gin trap, but evidence for a beneficial effect of hind-wing feeding is lacking. Here we tested whether hind-wing feeding provides material benefits to females by manipulating females’ access to nutrition—food restricted or ad lib food—and then providing females with four opportunities to mate over 8 days. As predicted, food-restricted females were more likely to feed on male hind wings, did more hind-wing damage, and were more likely to copulate with males than females provided ad lib food. We discuss these results in the context of the evolution of polyandry and sexual conflict.
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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".