Rearing Environment Affects the Brain Size of Guppies: Lab‐Reared Guppies have Smaller Brains than Wild‐Caught Guppies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Animals bred for captivity often have smaller brains and behave differently than their wild counterparts. These differences in brain size have been attributed to genetic changes resulting from, for example, inbreeding depression and pleiotropic effects of artificial selection for traits such as docility. A critical question, though, is whether these differences in brain size are due to plastic responses to the environment, not just genetic changes. We observed a large reduction in brain size in first generation, lab‐reared female guppies compared with wild‐caught ones (19% smaller telencephalon, 17% smaller optic tectum). We then reared first‐generation, lab‐born guppies in environments varying in spatial complexity and size in an attempt to isolate factors that might increase brain size and change temperament, but no significant differences in phenotype were observed. The results of these experiments show that, although the environmental factors responsible for the effect have not been found, even first generation lab‐reared individuals can have smaller brains than wild individuals.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".