Inclusive Fitness of Male and Facultatively Social Female Nesting Behavior in the Socially Polymorphic Bee,<i>Ceratina australensis</i>(Hymenoptera: Xylocopinae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Male hymenopterans do not typically provide help with nest construction or maintenance. This is thought to be due to the decreased relatedness of males to their siblings compared to sisters, and selection for outbreeding resulting in male dispersal from natal nesting sites. However, some instances of male ‘helping’ behaviors have been observed and can usually be explained by increased access to mating with resident females. Here we report on the first observations of cohabiting males within the nests of reproductive females of the facultatively social small carpenter bee, Ceratina australensis. Social nesting in C. australensis occurs at a consistently low rate across populations. We used microsatellites markers to determine relatedness, combined with 3 yr of nest demographic data collected across three populations, to assess the relative fitness of reproductive, nonreproductive, and male individuals cohabiting in reproductive nests. We found that males were brothers of reproductive females, both remaining in their natal nest. However, there was no evidence that they were mating with their sisters across all nests observed. Males in reproductive nests did not gain any direct or indirect fitness benefits as they did not sire any brood and their presence did not increase brood productivity or survivorship. It is possible that males were waiting to mate with nieces who had not yet emerged. Why males were tolerated remains unknown. Mating biology is an important consideration in social theory which requires additional empirical studies. Future long-term studies are needed to capture unusual social behaviors including male nesting behaviors.
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".