Genetic basis for body size variation between an anadromous and two derived lacustrine populations of threespine stickleback<i>Gasterosteus aculeatus</i>in southwest Alaska
Bibliographic record
Abstract
) into freshwater, but the genetic basis of the commonly found size difference between anadromous and derived lacustrine sticklebacks has not been tested. We studied the genetic basis of size differences between recently diverging stickleback lineages in southwest Alaska using a common environment experiment. We crossed stickleback within one anadromous (Naknek River) and one lake (Pringle Lake) population and between the anadromous and two lake populations (Pringle and JoJo Lakes), and raised them in a salinity of 4-6 ppt. The F1 anadromous and freshwater forms differed significantly in size, whereas hybrids were intermediate or exhibited dominance toward the anadromous form. Additionally, the size of freshwater F1s differed from their wild counterparts, with within-population F1s from Pringle Lake growing larger than their wild counterparts, while there was no size difference between lab-raised and wild anadromous fish. Sexual dimorphism was always present in anadromous fish, but not in freshwater, and not always in the hybrid crosses. These results, along with parallel changes among anadromous and freshwater forms in other regions, suggest that this heritable trait is both plastic and may be under divergent and/or sexual selection.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".