Beyond simple vs. complex: exploring the nuanced and unexpected effects of spatial environmental complexity on mating patterns and female fecundity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The features of the physical environment set the stage upon which sexual selection operates, and consequently can have a significant impact on variation in realized individual fitness, and influence a population's evolutionary trajectory. This phenomenon has been explored empirically in several studies using fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) which have found that changing the spatial complexity of the mating environment influenced male-female interaction dynamics, (re)mating rates, and realized female fecundities. However, these studies did not explore mating patterns, which can dramatically alter the genetic composition of the next generation, and frequently only compared a single, small "simple" environment to a single larger "complex" environment. While these studies have shown that broadly changing the characteristics of the environment can have big effects on reproductive dynamics, the plasticity of this outcome to more subtle changes has not been extensively explored. Our study set out to compare patterns of mating and courtship between large- and small-bodied males and females, and female fecundities in both a simple environment and 2 distinctly different spatially complex environments. We found that realized offspring production patterns differed dramatically between all 3 environments, indicating that the effects of increasing spatial complexity on mating outcomes are sensitive to the specific type of environmental complexity. Furthermore, we observed female fecundities were higher for flies in both complex environments compared those in the simple environment, supporting its role as a mediator of sexual conflict. Together, these results show that the union of gametes within a population can be greatly influenced by the specific spatial features of the environment and that while some outcomes of increased environmental complexity are likely generalizable, other phenomena such as mating patterns and courtship rates may vary from one complex environment to another.
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".