Mutualist‐induced transgenerational polyphenisms in cotton aphid populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1 In defensive mutualistic associations, reduced risk of predation should permit defended organisms to produce phenotypes with higher offspring production than non-mutualistic, unprotected conspecifics which require costly defensive traits. 2 Here, we show that cotton aphids, Aphis gossypii, which produce any combination of dwarf apterae (low intrinsic rate of increase), light green apterae (medium intrinsic rate of increase), dark green apterae (high intrinsic rate of increase) and alatae (winged dispersal morphs), alter offspring phenotypes when tended by predatory ants. 3 Aphids tended by the Argentine ant, Linepithema humile, have similar numbers of dwarf, dark green and alate offspring, but greater numbers of light green offspring, compared to untended colonies. 4 Because light green morphs have a higher intrinsic rate of increase than dwarf morphs but a decreased risk of parasitism compared to dark green morphs, increased production of the light green phenotype may optimize offspring production in order to maximize clone fitness. 5 Since many organisms have high levels of plasticity and mutualistic interactions are ubiquitous, mutualist-induced polyphenisms may be pervasive.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".