Size and shape assortative mating in Japanese beetles (<i>Popillia</i> <i>japonica</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assortative mating is hypothesized to be a product of sexual selection, mating constraints, or temporal autocorrelation. I test these hypotheses in the Japanese beetle (Popillia japonica Newman, 1841), a sexually size dimorphic invasive insect pest in North America, by measuring the size and shape of bodies and wings of pair members in a wild population. Because male P. japonica prefer to mate with larger females and larger males outcompete rivals for mating opportunities, sexual selection is expected to produce size-related assortative mating. The current study did not support this hypothesis. The mating constraints hypothesis was also not supported because beetle pairs did not have similar body shapes. I, however, did find support for the temporal autocorrelation hypothesis as the wing size and shape of pair members were significantly correlated. This mating pattern likely arises due to individuals with larger and more slender wings arriving earlier at aggregation sites and pairing according to their arrival sequence. Although I found less support for the sexual selection hypothesis, I argue that mate choice might play an important, but secondary, role to temporal autocorrelation in explaining assortative mating in Japanese beetles.
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) | 0.001 | 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".