Experimental Tests for Heritable Morphological Color Plasticity in Non-Native Brown Trout (Salmo trutta) Populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The success of invasive species is frequently attributed to phenotypic plasticity, which facilitates persistence in novel environments. Here we report on experimental tests to determine whether the intensity of cryptic coloration patterns in a global invader (brown trout, Salmo trutta) was primarily the result of plasticity or heritable variation. Juvenile F1 offspring were created through experimental crosses of wild-caught parents and reared for 30 days in the laboratory in a split-brood design on either light or dark-colored gravel substrate. Skin and fin coloration quantified with digital photography and image analysis indicated strong plastic effects in response to substrate color; individuals reared on dark substrate had both darker melanin-based skin color and carotenoid-based fin colors than other members of their population reared on light substrate. Slopes of skin and fin color reaction norms were parallel between environments, which is not consistent with heritable population-level plasticity to substrate color. Similarly, we observed weak differences in population-level color within an environment, again suggesting little genetic control on the intensity of skin and fin colors. Taken as whole, our results are consistent with the hypothesis that phenotypic plasticity may have facilitated the success of brown trout invasions and suggests that plasticity is the most likely explanation for the variation in color intensity observed among these populations in nature.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".