INBREEDING, DEVELOPMENTAL STABILITY, AND CANALIZATION IN THE SAND CRICKET GRYLLUS FIRMUS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inbreeding, the mating of close relatives, is known to have deleterious effects on fitness traits in organisms. Developmental stability (DS) and canalization may represent two processes that allow an organism to maintain a stable development that will produce the fittest phenotype. Inbreeding is thus expected to affect either DS or canalization. We tested if inbreeding affects DS and canalization using an inbreeding experiment on the cricket Gryllus firmus. We compared mean length, fluctuating asymmetry (as an index of DS), and morphological variation (as an index of canalization) of four limb traits between seven highly inbred lines, their F1 crosses, and outbred lines originated from the same stock population and maintained in the same environmental conditions. We show evidence for moderate inbreeding depression on the four measures of leg length. The nonsystematic difference in fluctuating asymmetry indices between breed types indicates that inbreeding or heterozygosity did not affect DS, or that fluctuating asymmetry is not a reliable index of DS. In contrast, inbreeding appears to affect canalization, as shown by the significantly higher variation in inbred lines compared to other lines. Identical low variation values in the crossbred and outbred lines indicate that heterozygosity could affect canalization. High variation in morphological variation and fluctuating asymmetry within crossbred or inbred lines, however, suggest the effect of recessive deleterious alleles on both canalization and DS. Although the strong correlation in morphological variation among traits suggests that identical genetic mechanisms govern canalization for all the limb traits, the absence of significant correlation in fluctuating asymmetry among traits causes us to reject this hypothesis for DS. For most of the traits, morphological variation and fluctuating asymmetry were not significantly correlated, which support the hypothesis that canalization and DS consist in two distinct mechanisms.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".