Sexual selection and the evolution of condition-dependence: an experimental test at two resource levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stronger condition-dependence in sexually selected traits is well-documented, but how this relationship is established remains unknown. Moreover, resource availability can shape responses to sexual selection, but resource effects on the relationship between sexual selection and condition-dependence are also unknown. In this study, we directly test the hypotheses that sexual selection drives the evolution of stronger-condition-dependence and that resource availability affects the outcome, by evolving fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) under relatively strong or weak sexual selection (through varied sex ratios) and at resource-poor or resource-rich adult diets. We then experimentally manipulated condition via developmental diet and assessed condition-dependence in adult morphology, behavior, and reproduction. We observed stronger condition-dependence in female size in male-biased populations and in female ovariole production in resource-limited populations. However, we found no evidence that male condition-dependence increased in response to sexual selection, or that responses depended on resource levels. These results offer no support for the hypotheses that sexual selection increases male condition-dependence or that sexual selection's influence on condition-dependence is influenced by resource availability. Our study is, to our knowledge, the first experimental test of these hypotheses. If the results we report are general, then sexual selection's influence on the evolution of condition-dependence may be less important than predicted.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".