Defense against outside competition is linked to cooperation in male–male partnerships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Male–male competition is a well-known driver of reproductive success and sexually selected traits in many species. However, in some species, males work together to court females or defend territories against male competitors. Dominant (nesting) males sire most offspring, but subordinate (satellite) males are better able to obtain fertilizations relative to unpartnered males. Because satellites only gain reproductive success by sneaking, there has been much interest in identifying the mechanisms enforcing satellite cooperation (defense) and reducing satellite sneaking. One such potential mechanism is outside competition: unpartnered satellites can destabilize established male partnerships and may force partnered satellites to restrain from cheating to prevent the dominant male from replacing them with an unpartnered satellite. Here, we manipulated perceived competition in the Mediterranean fish Symphodus ocellatus by presenting an “intruding” satellite male to established nesting and satellite male pairs. Focal satellite aggression to the intruder was higher when focal satellites were less cooperative, suggesting that satellites increase aggression to outside competitors when their social position is less stable. In contrast, nesting male aggression to the intruder satellite increased as spawning activity increased, suggesting that nesting males increase their defense toward outside competitors when their current relationship is productive. We found no evidence of altered spawning activity or nesting/satellite male interactions before and after the presentation. These results collectively suggest that response to outside competition is directly linked to behavioral dynamics between unrelated male partners and may be linked to conflict and cooperation in ways that are similar to group-living species.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".