Local Adaptation of Male Sexual Fitness in Drosophila melanogaster
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mate competition gives rise to sexual selection, and healthier, more vigorous males are likely to be superior competitors. Because most genes are likely to impact an individual’s vigor, sexual selection should act across much of the genome to favor the same alleles as natural selection, thereby promoting adaptation. On the other side of the coin, adaptation to an environment should enhance male sexual fitness in that environment because it is likely to increase the overall vigor of individuals within a population. Surprisingly, there are few tests of this latter prediction, and results are mixed. Taking advantage of a long-term evolution experiment involving replicate populations of Drosophila melanogaster, we performed a reciprocal transplant in which populations evolved in one of two alternative larval environments were reared in each of these two environments. Larval survival was quantified as an index of non-sexual fitness reflective of adaptation to their local larval environment, and the sexual fitness of the males that ecolosed was then compared via a comprehensive measure that included pre- and post-copulatory reproductive success in a competitive assay performed under conditions that closely mirrored those to which the populations had been evolving. Body size (adult dry weight) and development time (egg-to-adult eclosion) were also recorded for males and females that eclosed from the reciprocal transplant. The results add support to the idea that local adaptation to the abiotic environment enhances male sexual fitness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.014 |
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".