MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Correlated morphological and colour differences among females of the damselfly <i>Ischnura elegans</i>

2009· article· en· W2085474841 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica K. Abbott, Thomas P. Gosden

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Entomology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyDamselflySexual dimorphismFecundityMimicryZoologyContext (archaeology)Phenotypic plasticityEvolutionary biologyPopulationAdaptation (eye)EcologyOdonata

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract 1. The female‐limited colour polymorphic damselfly Ischnura elegans has proven to be an interesting study organism both as an example of female sexual polymorphism, and in the context of the evolution of colour polymorphism, as a model of speciation processes. 2. Previous research suggests the existence of correlations between colour morph and other phenotypic traits, and the different female morphs in I. elegans may be pursuing alternative phenotypically integrated strategies. However, previous research on morphological differences in southern Swedish individuals of this species was only carried out on laboratory‐raised offspring from a single population, leaving open the question of how widespread such differences are. 3. The present study therefore analysed multi‐generational data from 12 populations, investigating morphological differences between the female morphs in the field, differences in the pattern of phenotypic integration between morphs, and quantified selection on morphological traits. 4. It was found that consistent morphological differences indeed existed between the morphs across populations, confirming that the previously observed differences were not simply a laboratory artefact. It was also found, somewhat surprisingly, that despite the existence of sexual dimorphism in body size and shape, patterns of phenotypic integration differed most between the morphs and not between the sexes. Finally, linear selection gradients showed that female morphology affected fecundity differently between the morphs. 5. We discuss the relevance of these results to the male mimicry hypothesis and to the existence of potential ecological differences between the morphs.

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 score0.199
Threshold uncertainty score0.641

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations27
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcological EntomologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207