Ontogenetic Change in Genetic Variance in Size Depends on Growth Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within populations, the amount of environmental and genetic variation present may differ greatly among traits measured at multiple times over ontogeny. Brief periods of food deprivation are often followed by a period of accelerated (compensatory) growth. Early laboratory studies likewise reported a contraction of genetic variance in size as maturation approached. However, studies of wild populations often contradict these laboratory results. One possibility is that environmentally imposed stress is exposing genetic variance not seen in the laboratory. We tested the effect of rearing environment (high or low food) on genetic variance in size traits measured at two ages in the ladybird beetle Harmonia axyridis. A substantial amount of genetic variance was present in all combinations of rearing environment by ontogenetic stage among males. The pattern of change in male variance in mass over ontogeny was of opposite sign in the two food treatments, which may reflect cryptic genetic variance that is apparent only under stress. The proportion of overall variance that was due to additive genetic effects was much lower in females than in males, which suggests that the underlying genetics of female growth trajectories differs from that males. Our experimental design afforded an initial exploration of the genetics of compensatory growth.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".