Post-insemination selection dominates pre-insemination selection in driving rapid evolution of male competitive ability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual reproduction is a complex process that contributes to differences between the sexes and divergence between species. From a male's perspective, sexual selection can optimize reproductive success by acting on the variance in mating success (pre-insemination selection) as well as the variance in fertilization success (post-insemination selection). The balance between pre- and post-insemination selection has not yet been investigated using a strong hypothesis-testing framework that directly quantifies the effects of post-insemination selection on the evolution of reproductive success. Here we use experimental evolution of a uniquely engineered genetic system that allows sperm production to be turned off and on in obligate male-female populations of Caenorhabditis elegans. We show that enhanced post-insemination competition increases the efficacy of selection and surpasses pre-insemination sexual selection in driving a polygenic response in male reproductive success. We find that after 10 selective events occurring over 30 generations post-insemination selection increased male reproductive success by an average of 5- to 7-fold. Contrary to expectation, enhanced pre-insemination competition hindered selection and slowed the rate of evolution. Furthermore, we found that post-insemination selection resulted in a strong polygenic response at the whole-genome level. Our results demonstrate that post-insemination sexual selection plays a critical role in the rapid optimization of male reproductive fitness. Therefore, explicit consideration should be given to post-insemination dynamics when considering the population effects of sexual selection.
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) | 0.000 | 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".