No evidence for developmental plasticity of color patterns in response to rearing substrate in pygmy grasshoppers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Color polymorphisms in animals may result from genetic polymorphisms, developmental plasticity, or a combination where some phenotypic components are under strong genetic control and other aspects are influenced by developmental plasticity. Understanding how color polymorphisms evolve demands knowledge of how genetic and epigenetic environmental cues influence the development and phenotypic expression of organisms. Pygmy grasshoppers (Orthoptera, Tetrigidae) vary in color pattern within and among populations. Color morphs differ in morphology, behavior, and life history, suggesting that they represent alternative ecological strategies. Pygmy grasshoppers also show fire melanism, a rapid increase in the frequency of black and dark-colored phenotypes in populations inhabiting fire-ravaged areas. We examined the influence of plasticity on color polymorphism in the pygmy grasshopper Tetrix subulata (L., 1761) using a split-brood design. Individuals were experimentally raised in solitude on either crushed charcoal or white aquarium gravel. Our analyses uncovered no plasticity of either color pattern or overall darkness of coloration in response to rearing substrate. Instead, we find a strong resemblance between maternal and offspring color patterns. We conclude that pygmy grasshopper color morphs are strongly influenced by genetic cues or maternal effects, and that there is no evidence for developmental plasticity of coloration in response to rearing conditions in these insects.
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 | 0.000 | 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".