The Effects of Selective History and Environmental Heterogeneity on Inbreeding Depression in Experimental Populations of<i>Drosophila melanogaster</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inbreeding depression varies considerably among populations, but only some aspects of this variation have been thoroughly studied. Because inbreeding depression requires genetic variation, factors that influence the amount of standing variation can affect the magnitude of inbreeding depression. Environmental heterogeneity has long been considered an important contributor to the maintenance of genetic variation, but its effects on inbreeding depression have been largely ignored by empiricists. Here we compare inbreeding depression, measured in two environments, for 20 experimental populations of Drosophila melanogaster that have been maintained under four different selection regimes, including two types of environmentally homogeneous selection and two types environmentally heterogeneous selection. In line with theory, we find considerably higher inbreeding depression in populations from heterogeneous selection regimes. We also use our data set to test whether inbreeding depression is correlated with either stress or the phenotypic coefficient of variation (CV), as suggested by some recent studies. Though both of these factors are significant predictors of inbreeding depression in our study, there is an effect of assay environment on inbreeding depression that cannot be explained by either stress or CV.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".