Value of remating and functional sterility in redback spiders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the Australian redback spider, Latrodectus hasselti, males typically use their paired copulatory organs (palps) to copulate twice with a single female then sacrifice themselves to their cannibalistic mates in a strategy that increases their paternity in that one mating, but leads to death. This type of terminal investment in one mating is predicted only if the expected value of future matings is low for males relative to the value of repeated mating with the same female. In this laboratory study, we quantified the reproductive value of mating more than once with the same female (repeated mating) and mating with more than one female (multiple mating) for male redback spiders. We tested two natural selection hypotheses for repeated mating, sperm limitation and reproductive insurance, but found no support for either hypothesis. We show that, in the absence of sperm competition or cannibalism, male lifetime reproductive output is the same whether a male copulates once, twice, or several times with a given female. Repeated mating does not increase the probability of successful fertilization, nor does it increase the number of offspring produced in successful matings. Although male repeated mating is not favoured because of increased fertility of mates, other studies suggest it may be important in sperm competition. Here we show that the relative reproductive value of the first two copulations is very high for redback males because they are functionally sterile after each palp has been used once; nonvirgin males are unable to father offspring. Functional sterility and repeated mating by male redbacks may be favoured by the same factors that lead to male sacrifice behaviour: ecological constraints on multiple mating combined with competitive benefits of maximal investment in the first mating.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".