Do alternative reproductive strategies in the Wellington tree weta represent different behavioural types?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In many animal species, variation in reproductive success among individuals has led to the evolution of alternative mating strategies, which in the case of insects can often be correlated with developmental trajectories. In the Wellington tree weta, Hemideina crassidens, males can mature at the 8th, 9th or 10th instar, while females mature at the 10th instar only. A number of morphological attributes including male head and mandible size correlate with final instar number, and as these attributes represent a form of weaponry, they are often used in mate/site guarding and male–male competition. Tenth instar males have larger head/mandible/body sizes and show a conventional (guarder) reproductive strategy, whereas smaller 8th instar males typically show an unconventional (sneaker) strategy. In contrast, 9th instar males are predicted to adopt a “jack‐of‐all‐trades” strategy whereby they can fight or sneak depending context. Here, we tested whether alternative reproductive morphs exhibit strategy‐specific differences in risk‐taking associated with refuge emergence, activity and antipredator behaviour and further, whether these traits correlate to form a behavioural syndrome. We found that tree weta show consistent and repeatable differences in activity and refuge use at the individual level; however, behavioural covariances suggest that only 8th instar males exhibit a behavioural syndrome. That 9th instar males show high plasticity and variance in their gallery‐related behaviours supports the hypothesis that these males are a “jack‐of‐all‐trades.” Contrary to our predictions, antipredator behaviour was not correlated with other traits, and differences in behaviour overall were consistently more pronounced between individuals rather than between male morphs or sexes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".