Evidence for developmental plasticity in response to demographic variation in nature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adaptive developmental plasticity has been demonstrated across a number of taxa in response to variables such as photoperiod, resource abundance, and predator presence. Demographics also vary temporally and spatially within populations, but few studies have examined the possibility that developmental plasticity in response to changes in these variables can alter phenotypic distributions. Plastic responses to variable population density and sex ratio may play an important role in explaining phenotypic variation in nature. In this study, we examine two species of spiders (Nephila plumipes and Argiope keyserlingi) to examine whether there is evidence that males alter their development in response to demographics in natural populations. We studied spiders in which developing males can use pheromones as a cue of the density of conspecific males and females. We used published information about the mating systems and life history of each species to make predictions about expected patterns of plasticity in development time and correlated changes in adult body size in response to demographic variation. Within each species, male size and mass were positively correlated with the density of males but negatively correlated with the density of females, and as predicted, this was true only when calculated at spatial scales relevant to selection in each species. In contrast, seasonal variation in photoperiod could not explain measured variance in male size. Our results support the idea that developmental plasticity in response to demographics has a significant effect on phenotypic distributions in natural populations. Our results suggest that a proportion of variation in male phenotypes could be explained as a plasticity-mediated evolutionary response to variation in population demographics rather than as a physiological response to resource abundance and/or photoperiod.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".