Juvenile Experience with Male Cues Triggers Cryptic Choice Mechanisms in Adult Female Redback Spiders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Female choice may be linked to population density if the expected encounter rates with potential mates affects choosiness (the energy and risk engaged to express mate preferences). Choosiness should covary with male availability, which could be assessed using the social cues available during development. We tested whether the exposure of juvenile females to cues of male density affected the mechanisms of choosiness of adult Latrodectus hasselti spiders in two experiments simulating natural contexts. The juvenile females were exposed to (1) volatile chemicals from two densities of adult males (airborne cues), and (2) tactile, vibrational and chemical cues from adult males or other females (cohabitation cues). As adults, the females mated readily, regardless of the treatment, but there was strong evidence for post-copulatory mechanisms of choosiness in females exposed to cues of high male availability. These included abbreviated matings (in both experiments), cannibalism of the males before the mating was complete (cohabitation), and, remarkably, a reduction in the successful placement of internal sperm plugs (cohabitation). These shifts decrease the likelihood that the first mate would monopolize paternity if the female chose to mate again. We conclude that female choosiness may impose a strong selection on males despite the high mating rates, and these effects can hinge on the cues of male availability detected by juveniles.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".