Repeatability of adaptation in experimental populations of different sizes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The degree to which evolutionary trajectories and outcomes are repeatable across independent populations depends on the relative contribution of selection, chance and history. Population size has been shown theoretically and empirically to affect the amount of variation that arises among independent populations adapting to the same environment. Here, we measure the contribution of selection, chance and history in different-sized experimental populations of the unicellular alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii adapting to a high salt environment to determine which component of evolution is affected by population size. We find that adaptation to salt is repeatable at the fitness level in medium (Ne = 5 × 10(4)) and large (Ne = 4 × 10(5)) populations because of the large contribution of selection. Adaptation is not repeatable in small (Ne = 5 × 10(3)) populations because of large constraints from history. The threshold between stochastic and deterministic evolution in this case is therefore between effective population sizes of 10(3) and 10(4). Our results indicate that diversity across populations is more likely to be maintained if they are small. Experimental outcomes in large populations are likely to be robust and can inform our predictions about outcomes in similar situations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".