Data from: Sexual conflict and antagonistic coevolution across water strider populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microevolutionary studies have demonstrated sexually antagonistic selection on sexual traits, and existing evidence supports a macroevolutionary pattern of sexually antagonistic coevolution. Two current questions are how antagonistic selection within populations scales to divergence among populations, and to what extent intraspecific divergence matches species-level patterns. To address these questions, we conducted an intraspecific comparative study of sexual armaments and mating behaviours in a water strider (Gerris incognitus) in which male genitals grasp resistant females and female abdominal structures help ward off males. The degree of exaggeration of these armaments coevolves across species. We found a similar strong pattern of antagonistic coevolution among populations, suggesting that sexual conflict drives population differentiation in morphology. Furthermore, relative exaggeration in armaments was closely related to mating outcomes in a common environment. Interestingly, the effect of armaments on mating was mediated by population sexual size dimorphism. When females had a large size advantage, mating activity was low and independent of armaments, but when males had a relative size advantage, mating activity depended on which sex had relatively exaggerated armaments. Thus, a strong signal of sexually antagonistic coevolution is apparent even among populations. These results open opportunities to understand links between sexual arms races, ecological variation and reproductive isolation.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.013 |
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".