Risky business: males choose more receptive adults over safer subadults in a cannibalistic spider
Bibliographic record
Abstract
) mate with adult as well as immature (subadult) females. Mating with adults involves costly courtship with a repertoire of signaling behaviors, and typically ends with cannibalism ("self-sacrifice" initiated by male somersault). Mating with subadults involves brief courtship with behavioral repertoire reduced to one component (vibration) and no cannibalism. We examined male mate choice as a function of risks associated with different types of mates and the cues available to courting males. Previous studies showed male preference for adults based on air-borne pheromones, but it was unclear whether that preference is maintained after males reach female's webs. We show that males prefer adults also based on silk-borne contact cues. To determine which types of cues trigger different courtship components, we swapped adults and subadults between webs. We showed that contact with adult females' webs triggers two courtship behaviors from the repertoire, with adult female's bodies triggering additional behaviors. However, vibrational signals occur regardless of the web origin or female developmental stage. We conclude that males recognize subadult females as potential mates, but are more likely to invest in costly courtship behaviors and mating attempts with adults. In our experiments, subadults were less likely to mate than adults. We conclude that mating with adults could be the preferred option for males because of the higher likelihood of copulation, even at the cost of a higher risk of cannibalism.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".