Sex, shells, and weaponry: Coercive reproductive tactics in the Painted Turtle, Chrysemys picta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Males and females have divergent reproductive interests arising from their unequal investments in offspring. This sexual conflict drives an antagonistic arms-race that influences sex-specific reproductive success. Alternative reproductive tactics are expected in long-lived species for which the reproductive strategy that maximizes mating success could differ across body sizes. The mating strategy of the painted turtle (Chrysemys picta) has been characterized as an elaborate and amiable male courtship display during which males use their elongate foreclaws to stroke females, coupled with female mate choice. Contrary to this long-held understanding, in situ field observations and experimental trials from our long-term study in Algonquin Provincial Park, Canada, demonstrate that males also exhibit an alternative, coercive mating strategy. Males are equipped with sexually-size dimorphic tomiodonts, tooth-like cusps of the beak, as well as a weaponized anterior shell, with which they wound the head and neck of females. Behavioral trials during the breeding periods showed that male reproductive tactics shift from courtship (foreclaw display) to coercion (striking, biting, and forced submergence) across ontogeny, and male size predicts the occurrence and frequency of coercive behavior. We found phenotype-behavior matching whereby small males invest in putatively ornamental foreclaws used for courtship and large males invest in weaponry for coercion, challenging existing knowledge of this well-studied species. As a group with a long evolutionary history and varied mating systems, Testudines are a particularly interesting taxon in which to ask questions about mating system evolution.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".