Data for: Paternity sharing in insects with female competition for nuptial gifts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Male parental investment is expected to be associated with high confidence of paternity. Studies of species with exclusive male parental care have provided support for this hypothesis because mating typically co-occurs with each oviposition, allowing control over paternity and the allocation of care. However, in systems where males invest by feeding mates (typically arthropods) mating (and thus the investment) is separated from egg-laying, resulting in less control over insemination (as male ejaculates compete with rival sperm stored by females) and a greater risk of investing in unrelated offspring (cuckoldry). As strong selection on males to increase paternity would compromise the fitness of all a female's other mates that make costly nutrient contributions, paternity sharing (males not excluded from siring offspring) is an expected outcome of sperm competition. Using wild-caught females in an orthopteran and a dipteran species, in which sexually selected, ornamented females compete for male nuptial food gifts needed for successful reproduction, we examined paternity patterns and compared them to findings in other insects. We used microsatellite analysis of offspring (lifetime reproduction in the orthopteran) and stored sperm from wild-caught females in both study species, and as predicted there was evidence of shared paternity as few males failed to sire offspring. Further support for paternity-sharing is the lack of last-male sperm precedence in our study species. Although paternity was not equal among sires, our estimates of paternity bias were similar to other insects with valuable nuptial gifts and contrasted with the finding that males are frequently excluded from siring offspring in species where males supply little more than sperm. This suggests paternity bias may be reduced in nuptial-gift systems and may help facilitate the evolution of these paternal investments.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.456 | 0.181 |
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".