TRADE OFFS IN HABITAT-SPECIFIC FORAGING EFFICIENCY AND THE NASCENT ADAPTIVE DIVERGENCE OF STICKLEBACKS IN LAKES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract I assessed habitat-specific foraging efficiency of shallow-water and open-water forms from a morphologically variable population of threespine sticklebacks. Individuals sampled from open-water or shallow-water habitats tend to be morphologically divergent, although the morphology of the modal form is intermediate between the better-known benthic and limnetic pairs of stickleback species that coexist in other local lakes. I tested two hypotheses about this intraspecific variation. First, that heritable genetic variation in body form exists between forms. Morphological differences occurred between progeny reared under common laboratory conditions indicating that heritable genetic variation contributes to morphological variation. Second, that open-water and shallow-water forms face trade offs involving foraging on habitat-specific prey. The foraging efficiency of both forms was measured in two types of habitat (benthos and open-water) simulated in lab aquaria. Foraging efficiency was related to morphological differences between morphs. Relative morph efficiencies were reversed between habitats in a predictable fashion. More streamlined open-water forms consumed Artemia nauplii at a higher rate and with fewer bites than more robust shallow-water morphs. Conversely, shallow-water morphs required fewer bites to capture and consume more and larger amphipods than open-water forms. An asymmetry in the trade offs indicates that shallow-water types may be the more specialized form. These results are consistent with a hypothesis that trade offs in habitat use efficiency can be involved early in the adaptive divergence of sticklebacks into different lake environments. Similar trade offs exist for the coexisting pairs of stickleback species, suggesting that trade offs are more likely a cause, rather than a consequence, of speciation in sticklebacks that colonize lakes.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".