The role of functional constraints in nonrandom mating patterns for a dance fly with female ornaments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most hypotheses to explain nonrandom mating patterns invoke mate choice, particularly in species that display elaborate ornaments. However, conflicting selection pressures on traits can result in functional constraints that can also cause nonrandom mating patterns. We tested for functional load-lifting constraints during aerial copulation in Rhamphomyia longicauda, a species of dance fly that displays multiple extravagant female-specific ornaments that are unusual among sexual traits because they are under stabilizing selection. R. longicauda males provide females with a nuptial gift before engaging in aerial mating, and the male bears the entire weight of the female and nuptial gift for the duration of copulation. In theory, a male's ability to carry females and nuptial gifts could constrain pairing opportunities for the heaviest females, as reported for nonornamented dance flies. In concert with directional preferences for large females with mature eggs, such a load-lifting constraint could produce the stabilizing selection on female size previously observed in this species. We therefore tested whether wild-caught male R. longicauda collected during copulation were experiencing load-lift limitations by comparing the mass carried by males during copulation with the male's wing loading traits. We also performed permutation tests to determine whether the loads carried by males during copulation were lighter than expected. We found that heavier males are more often found mating with heavier females suggesting that whereas R. longicauda males do not experience a load-lift constraint, there is a strong relationship of assortative mating by mass. We suggest that active male mate choice for intermediately adorned females is more likely to be causing the nonrandom mating patterns observed in R. longicauda.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".