Anisogamy selects for male‐biased care in self‐consistent games with synchronous matings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We reexamine the influential parental investment hypothesis proposed by Trivers for the causal relationship between anisogamy and widespread female-biased parental care. We build self-consistent versions of Maynard Smith's simple evolutionary game between males and females over parental care, and incorporate consequences of anisogamy for gamete production and its trade-off with parental care, and for patterns of mate limitation. As male mating opportunities are limited by females, frequency-dependent selection acts on male strategies. Assuming synchrony of matings in the population, our analytical models find either symmetric sex roles or male-biased care as an evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS), in contrast to Trivers' hypothesis. We simulate evolution in asynchronously mating populations and find that diverse parental roles, including female care, can be ESS depending on the parameters. When caring males can also remate, or when females can increase the clutch size by deserting, there is stronger selection for male-biased care. Hence, we argue that the mating-caring trade-off for males is neither a necessary consequence of anisogamy nor sufficient to select for female-biased care. Instead, the factors excluded from our models-costly competitive traits, sexual selection, and partial parentage-may be necessary for the parental investment hypothesis to work.
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".