Plasticity in male mating behavior modulates female life history in fruit flies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many species, intense male-male competition for the opportunity to sire offspring has led to the evolution of selfish reproductive traits that are harmful to the females they mate with. In the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, males modulate their reproductive behavior based on the perceived intensity of competition in their premating environment. Specifically, males housed with other males subsequently transfer a larger ejaculate during a longer mating compared to males housed alone. Although the potential fitness benefits to males from such plasticity are clear, its effects on females are mostly unknown. Hence, we tested the long-term consequences to females from mating with males with distinct social experiences. First, we verified that competitive experience influences male mating behavior and found that males housed with rivals subsequently have shorter mating latencies and longer mating durations. Then, we exposed females every other day for 20 days to males that were either housed alone or with rivals, and subsequently measured their fitness. We found that females mated to males housed with rivals produce more offspring early in life but fewer offspring later in life and have shorter lifespans but similar intrinsic population growth rates. These results indicate that plasticity in male mating behavior can influence female life histories by altering females' relative allocation to early versus late investment in reproduction and survival.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".