MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082141729 · doi:10.1093/beheco/arn084

Genetic and plastic components of divergent male intersexual behavior in Misty lake/stream stickleback

2008· article· en· W2082141729 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Matthieu Delcourt, Katja Räsänen, Andrew P. Hendry

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Ecology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaVetenskapsrådet
KeywordsBiologyThree-spined sticklebackGasterosteusSticklebackEcotypeMatingReproductive isolationGenetic divergenceCourtship displayEcologyZoologyFish <Actinopterygii>FisheryGenetic diversityDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The extent of variation in mating signals between environments can be an important determinant of reproductive isolation. We tested divergence in male courtship behavior between lake and stream three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.) in the Misty system, Vancouver Island. Presumably, genetically based divergence was assessed by comparing male behavior (aggressive, display, and nest activities) among Lake, Inlet, and Outlet ecotypes that were reared from fertilization to maturity in a common environment. Plastic components of behavior were assessed by comparing male behavior in presence of females from each of the 3 ecotypes. We found that Inlet males had less aggressive elements than Lake and Outlet males in their behavior, whereas Lake and Outlet males were similar in their behavior. We further found that males of all ecotypes performed less display and nest activities in the presence of Lake and Outlet than Inlet females and that the male mating behavior was influenced by the relative difference in male and female body sizes. We suggest that divergent selection has driven genetic divergence in aggressive behaviors, whereas other behavioral components respond more plastically to variation in female phenotype. We discuss the implications of these results for reproductive isolation.

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 score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.934

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations22
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral EcologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207