The nature of nurture in a wild mammal's fitness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genetic variation in fitness is required for the adaptive evolution of any trait but natural selection is thought to erode genetic variance in fitness. This paradox has motivated the search for mechanisms that might maintain a population's adaptive potential. Mothers make many contributions to the attributes of their developing offspring and these maternal effects can influence responses to natural selection if maternal effects are themselves heritable. Maternal genetic effects (MGEs) on fitness might, therefore, represent an underappreciated source of adaptive potential in wild populations. Here we used two decades of data from a pedigreed wild population of North American red squirrels to show that MGEs on offspring fitness increased the population's evolvability by over two orders of magnitude relative to expectations from direct genetic effects alone. MGEs are predicted to maintain more variation than direct genetic effects in the face of selection, but we also found evidence of maternal effect trade-offs. Mothers that raised high-fitness offspring in one environment raised low-fitness offspring in another environment. Such a fitness trade-off is expected to maintain maternal genetic variation in fitness, which provided additional capacity for adaptive evolution beyond that provided by direct genetic effects on fitness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".