What is driving male mate preference evolution in Jamaican field crickets?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Male mating preferences are often a neglected aspect of studies on sexual selection. Male mating preferences may evolve if they provide males with direct‐fitness benefits such as increased opportunity to fertilize more eggs or indirect‐fitness benefits such as enhanced offspring survival. We tested these ideas using Jamaican field crickets, G ryllus assimilis , previously shown to exhibit male mating preferences. We randomly mated males to either their preferred or non‐preferred potential mates and then asked whether mating treatment influenced egg oviposition or offspring viability. Preferred females were not significantly more fecund and did not produce more viable eggs or offspring than non‐preferred females. Male mate preferences were therefore inconsistent with both the direct‐ and indirect‐fitness benefits hypotheses under the conditions of our experiment. Our null results leave us with an open question about what is driving the evolution of mating preferences in male crickets. Future research should explore the whether the offspring of preferred females are more attractive, have stronger immune systems, and/or experience higher adult longevity.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".