Nutritional insensitivity to mating in male fruit flies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animals can adjust their consumption of different nutrients to adaptively match their current or expected physiological state. Changes in diet preference can arise from social and sexual experience. For example, in female Drosophila melanogaster fruit flies, a single mating triggers a behavioural switch in diet choice towards increased protein intake and total food consumption, which supports offspring production. In contrast, male diet choice appears to be unaffected by a single mating. However, one mating may not fully capture the impact of mating on male feeding behaviour. Males can often mate multiply in natural settings, and the costs of ejaculate production and energetic courtship may be cumulative, such that males might experience increased nutritional demands only after multiple matings. In this study we tested this idea by measuring the effect of multiple matings on the diet choice of male D. melanogaster fruit flies. Males were assigned to one of three mating treatments – unmated, mated once or mated five times consecutively – and then allowed to feed freely on chemically-defined diets of protein and carbohydrate. In contrast to the prediction, we found that males that mated five times did not alter the amount of food, nor the proportion of protein and carbohydrate consumed, when compared with unmated or once-mated males. This absence of a feeding response occurred despite substantial ejaculate depletion from multiple matings: males sired fewer offspring in each consecutive mating. These results reveal a lack of plasticity in male feeding behaviour according to mating status, despite substantial potential physiological costs, and highlight the remarkably distinct nutritional ecologies of males versus females.
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) | 0.002 | 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".