Reduced sexual size dimorphism in a pipefish population where males do not prefer larger females
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Within a species' distribution, populations are often exposed to diverse environments and may thus experience different sources of both natural and sexual selection. These differences are likely to impact the balance between costs and benefits to individuals seeking reproduction, thus entailing evolutionary repercussions. Here, we look into an unusual population (Baltic Sea) of the broadnosed pipefish, Syngnathus typhle , where males do not seem to select females based on size and hypothesize that this pattern may derive from a reduction in direct benefits to the male. We further hypothesize that if larger females do not persistently secure a higher reproductive success, either through pre‐ or postcopulatory sexual selection, a decrease in sexual size dimorphism in the Baltic population should be apparent, especially when contrasted with a well‐studied population, inhabiting similar latitudes (Swedish west coast), where males prefer larger females. We found that, in the Baltic population, variation in female quality is low. We were unable to find differences in abortion rates or protein concentration in oocytes produced by females of contrasting sizes. Direct benefits from mating with large partners seem, thus, reduced in the Baltic population. We also found no evidence of any postcopulatory mechanism that could favor larger mothers as embryo development was unrelated to female size. While female size can still be selected through intrasexual competition or fecundity selection, the pressure for large female body size seems to be lower in the Baltic. Accordingly, we found a noticeable decrease in sexual size dimorphism in the Baltic population. We conclude that, although far from negating the significance of other selective processes, sexual selection seems to have a decisive role in supporting pipefish sexual size asymmetries.
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".