The evolution of monogamy in cichlids and marine reef fishes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although several hypotheses have been proposed to explain the emergence of social monogamy, its origin is still intensely debated. Monogamy has many potential drivers, but evolutionary causality among them remains unclear. Using phylogenetic comparative methods within a Bayesian framework we explored the evolution of monogamy in cichlids and in marine reef fishes because, while both groups are characterised by unusually high incidence of social monogamy, they face very different ecological challenges. For each group, we examined four classic hypotheses that explain the evolution of monogamy: female dispersal, male mate guarding, female–female intolerance, and the biparental care hypotheses. We also explored whether the ecological traits of diet and shelter use are evolutionarily coupled with these hypotheses or with monogamy. First, we found that the evolution of monogamy was predicted by male territoriality in cichlids and simultaneous male and female territoriality in marine reef fishes. We suggest that these results provide support for the male mate guarding hypothesis in cichlids and female–female intolerance hypothesis in marine reef fishes. Second, we demonstrate clear evidence against the biparental care hypothesis, as biparental care was a consequence, not a cause, of monogamy in our analyses. Third, as female dispersal drove the loss of monogamy in both cichlids and marine reef fishes, this suggests the female dispersal hypothesis is not driving the evolution of monogamy in either group. These findings in two highly-monogamous fish taxa largely support prior findings from primate and bird comparative studies and provide novel large-scale evidence for a link between mate guarding and the evolution of monogamy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".