MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169865905 · doi:10.1111/ele.12234

Alleles underlying larval foraging behaviour influence adult dispersal in nature

2014· letter· en· W2169865905 on OpenAlexaff
Allan H. Edelsparre, Anders Vesterberg, Jang H. Lim, Milad Anwari, Mark Fitzpatrick

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology Letters · 2014
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiological dispersalForagingBiologyEcologyPopulationHabitatLarvaColonisationZoologyAlleleColonizationGeneticsGeneDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The dispersal and migration of organisms have resulted in the colonisation of nearly every possible habitat and ultimately the extraordinary diversity of life. Animal dispersal tendencies are commonly heterogeneous (e.g. long vs. short) and non-random suggesting that phenotypic and genotypic variability between individuals can contribute to population-level heterogeneity in dispersal. Using laboratory and field experiments, we demonstrate that natural allelic variation in a gene underlying a foraging polymorphism in larval fruit flies (for), also influences their dispersal tendencies as adults. Rover flies (for(R) ; higher foraging activity) have consistently greater dispersal tendencies and are more likely to disperse longer distances than sitter flies (for(s) ; lower foraging activity). Increasing for expression in the brain and nervous system increases dispersal in sitter flies. Our study supports the notion that variation in dispersal can be driven by intrinsic variation in food-dependent search behaviours and confirms that single gene pleiotropic effects can contribute to population-level heterogeneity in dispersal.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations78
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology LettersSame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207