Modular phenotypic plasticity: divergent responses of barnacle penis and feeding leg form to variation in density and wave-exposure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traits can evolve both in response to direct selection and in response to indirect selection on other linked traits. Although the evolutionary significance of coupled traits (e.g., through shared components of developmental pathways, or through competition for shared developmental resources) is now well accepted, we know comparatively little about how developmental coupling may restrict the independent responses of two or more phenotypically plastic traits in response to conflicting environmental cues. Such studies are important because coupled development, if present, could act as an important limit to the evolution of functionally independent plasticity in multiple traits. I tested whether developmental coupling can restrict the direction of plastic responses by studying how penis form and leg form--both highly plastic traits of barnacles--varied in response to differences in conspecific density and water velocity. Penis length and leg length in Balanus glandula varied in parallel with variation in wave-exposure but varied in opposite directions with variation in conspecific density. This study represents one of the rare tests of developmental coupling between multiple (demonstrably adaptive) plastic traits: Barnacle legs and penises appear to exhibit modular development that can respond concurrently--yet in independent directions--to conflicting environmental cues.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".