MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027064870 · doi:10.1086/603639

Experimental Evidence for the Rapid Evolution of Behavioral Canalization in Natural Populations

2009· article· en· W2027064870 on OpenAlexafffund
Timothy C. Edgell, Brian R. Lynch, Geoffrey C. Trussell, A. Richard Palmer

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Naturalist · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsBamfield Marine Sciences Centre
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMalacological Society of LondonNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiologySnailAdaptabilityFlexibility (engineering)Natural selectionEcologyPredatorPredationZoologyEvolutionary biologySelection (genetic algorithm)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canalization-the evolutionary loss of the capacity of organisms to develop different phenotypes in different environments-is an evolutionary phenomenon suspected to occur widely, although examples in natural populations are elusive. Because behavior is typically a highly flexible component of an individual's phenotype, it provides fertile ground for studying the evolution of canalization. Here we report how snail populations exposed for different lengths of time to a predatory crab introduced from Europe to America exhibit different degrees of canalization of an adaptive antipredator behavior: soft tissue withdrawal, measured as angular retraction depth. Where crab-snail contact is shortest (60 years), snails showed the highest behavioral flexibility. Where crabs invaded 110 years ago, snails showed significantly less behavioral flexibility, and where the interaction is ancient (Europe), snails exhibited highly canalized behavior. Selection therefore appears to have acted rapidly to increase canalization in wild snail populations, leading ultimately to the hard-wired behavior seen in European conspecifics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.113
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations42
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American NaturalistSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207