MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404858236 · doi:10.1093/jeb/voae148

Sexual size dimorphism as a determinant of biting performance dimorphism in <i>Anolis</i> lizards

2024· article· en· W4404858236 on OpenAlexafffund
Ken S. Toyama, Jonathan B. Losos, Anthony Herrel, D. Luke Mahler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evolutionary Biology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHarvard University
KeywordsSexual dimorphismAnolisBiologyAllometrySexual selectionZoologyTraitInterspecific competitionEvolutionary biologyNatural selectionSelection (genetic algorithm)EcologyLizard

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rensch's rule describes a pattern of interspecific allometry in which sexual size dimorphism (SSD) increases with size among closely related species (i.e., among a group of related species, the largest ones tend to show more male-biased SSD). Sexual selection is often invoked to explain Rensch's rule, as larger male body size is assumed to be favoured by sexual selection for increased fighting performance in contests for mating opportunities. Often, however, the correlation between size and performance is not well described. We studied a sexually selected performance trait, bite force in Anolis lizards, to determine whether patterns of SSD are linked to size-associated patterns of performance dimorphism at the macroevolutionary level, as expected under the sexual selection hypothesis for Rensch's rule. Additionally, we tested whether allometric patterns of performance dimorphism differ between mainland and island species, as the latter have likely evolved under a stronger sexual selection regime. We found that SSD overwhelmingly explains the relationship between performance dimorphism and size in anoles, as expected under a sexual selection model for Rensch's rule. However, residual performance dimorphism was higher in island than in mainland species, suggesting that these groups differ in performance dimorphism for reasons unrelated to size. Head size dimorphism was associated with residual performance dimorphism, but did not fully explain the difference in performance dimorphism between island and mainland species. Together, these findings highlight the need to interpret Rensch's rule patterns of body size evolution cautiously, as allometric patterns of performance dimorphism and size dimorphism might not be equivalent.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evolutionary BiologySame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207