Color Assortative Mating in a Mainland Population of the Poison Frog <i>Oophaga pumilio</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Assortative mating is a reproductive strategy used by a diversity of animals, in which individuals choose a mate that shares similar characteristics. This mating strategy has the potential to promote the evolution of various sexual signals and has been a proposed mechanism driving and maintaining color variation in the anuran family Dendrobatidae. Most studies have examined this reproductive strategy in the polytypic poison frog, Oophaga pumilio, in the Bocas del Toro archipelago in Panama. Little attention, however, has been given to ancestral populations across this species’ mainland range, where dramatic color polytypism appears to lack. Additionally, most studies are exclusively experimental and investigate mate choice between allopatric populations, neglecting the behaviors of naturally occurring mates. This study observed natural mating pairs within a population of O. pumilio on mainland Costa Rica and tested the prediction that color phenotype of mating females and males would be correlated. Naturally occurring pairs were found to share similar coloration, suggesting that color assortative mating operates in nature, and in a mainland population. Our results indicate that coloration is an important trait in driving the natural mate choices of female O. pumilio, which provides valuable insight into realistic mate selection tactics of this dendrobatid frog.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".