MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407147427 · doi:10.1111/ele.70067

Reproductive Interference Alters Species Coexistence in Nematodes due to Asymmetric Sperm‐Induced Harm

2025· article· en· W4407147427 on OpenAlexafffund
Rebecca Schalkowski, Katja R. Kasimatis, Megan A. Greischar, Asher D. Cutter

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology Letters · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyEcologyMatingSympatric speciationPopulationCompetition (biology)Mating systemParasitismReproductive successHost (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Species coexistence is shaped by a range of biotic and abiotic factors. Beyond predation, parasitism and competition, one species may interfere with another's reproduction to induce sexual exclusion from a habitat. Here, we test for reproductive interference from inter-species mating between sympatric nematodes Caenorhabditis macrosperma and C. nouraguensis. Higher intrinsic population growth of C. nouraguensis arises from greater reproductive output by both sexes, predicting it to be superior in resource competition. Mate discrimination between species is incomplete, however, with inter-species mating errors reducing lifespan and reproductive fitness of female C. nouraguensis only. These asymmetric costs arise within hours, due to ectopic migration of C. macrosperma's giant sperm cells. We modelled the population dynamic impacts of reproductive interference, then confirmed rapid sexual exclusion in mixed-species communities with multi-generation experiments. These findings demonstrate the profound ecological implications of reproductive interference for demographic parameters and species coexistence through a cell-mediated mechanism of inter-species harm.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.752
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology LettersSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207