MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060814666 · doi:10.1111/jeb.12230

Morphological change and phenotypic plasticity in native and non‐native pumpkinseed sunfish in response to sustained water velocities

2013· article· en· W2060814666 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Stan Yavno, Michael G. Fox

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evolutionary Biology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsTrent University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyPhenotypic plasticityDorsal finPopulationCentrarchidaeEcologyZoologyDorsumAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phenotypic plasticity can contribute to the proliferation and invasion success of nonindigenous species by promoting phenotypic changes that increase fitness, facilitate range expansion and improve survival. In this study, differences in phenotypic plasticity were investigated using young-of-year pumpkinseed sunfish from colonies established with lentic and lotic populations originating in Canada (native) and Spain (non-native). Individuals were subjected to static and flowing water treatments for 80 days. Inter- and intra-population differences were tested using ancova and discriminant function analysis, and differences in phenotypic plasticity were tested through a manova of discriminant function scores. Differences between Iberian and North American populations were observed in dorsal fin length, pectoral fin position and caudal peduncle length. Phenotypic plasticity had less influence on morphology than genetic factors, regardless of population origin. Contrary to predictions, Iberian pumpkinseed exhibited lower levels of phenotypic plasticity than native populations, suggesting that canalization may have occurred in the non-native populations during the processes of introduction and range expansion.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.410

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations26
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evolutionary BiologySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207