The evolution of phenotypic plasticity in response to anthropogenic disturbance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"Questions: Do evolutionary changes in phenotypic plasticity occur after anthropogenic disturbance? Do these changes tend to be increases or decreases in plasticity? How do these evolutionary patterns differ among taxa and trait types? Does evolution of plasticity change with time since the disturbance? Data incorporated: Evolutionary rates for plasticity estimated from 20 studies that have compared a plastic response in two or more populations, at least one of which had experienced an anthropogenic disturbance in nature and at least one of which had not. Method of analysis: We estimate evolutionary rates (darwins and haldanes) for plasticity for each study, which represent the amount of evolutionary change in plasticity. We then perform analyses of covariance, with the evolutionary rate numerator (amount of evolutionary change) as a response variable, taxa and trait type as predictor variables, and the amount of evolutionary time as a covariate. Conclusions: We find that plasticity has evolved in several cases, including both increases and decreases in the levels of plasticity following anthropogenic disturbances. The typical direction of this evolutionary response depends on an interaction between taxon and trait type. For instance, invertebrates sometimes show the evolution of increased plasticity for life-history traits, but the evolution of decreased plasticity for morphological traits. Plants, on the other hand, show no trends in the direction of plasticity evolution."@eng
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".