The multiple origins of sexual size dimorphism in global amphibians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim Body size explains most of the variation in fitness within animal populations and is therefore under constant selection from ecological and reproductive pressures, which often promote its evolution in sex‐specific directions, leading to sexual size dimorphism (SSD). Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain the vast diversity of SSD across species. These hypotheses emphasize: (a) the mate competition benefits to larger male size (sexual selection); (b) the benefits of larger female size for fecundity (fecundity selection); (c) the simultaneous benefits of niche divergence for males and females to reduce intersexual competition for ecological resources (natural selection); and (d) the underlying impact of geographical variation in climatic pressures expected to shape large‐scale patterns of SSD in synergy with the above selection pressures (e.g., intensification of fecundity selection as breeding seasons shorten). Based on a new, global‐scale amphibian dataset, we address the shortage of large‐scale, integrative tests of these four hypotheses. Location Global. Time period Extant. Major taxa studied Class Amphibia. Methods Using a > 3,500 species dataset spanning body size, ecological, life‐history, geographical and climatic data, we performed phylogenetic linear models to address the sexual, fecundity, ecological and climatic hypotheses of SSD. Results Evolution of SSD is discordant between anurans and salamanders. Anuran SSD is shaped by climate (male‐biased SSD increases with temperature seasonality) and by nesting site. In salamanders, SSD converges across species that occupy the same types of microhabitats (“ecodimorphs”), whereas reproductive or climatic pressures have no effects on their SSD. These contrasts are associated with latitudinal gradients of SSD in anurans, but not in salamanders. Main conclusions Amphibian SSD is driven by ecological and climatic pressures, whereas no roles for sexual or fecundity selection were detected. We show that macroevolutionary processes determined by different forms of selection lead to latitudinal patterns of trait diversity, and the lack of them.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".