Parallel and nonparallel behavioural evolution in response to parasitism and predation in Trinidadian guppies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Natural enemies such as predators and parasites are known to shape intraspecific variability of behaviour and personality in natural populations, yet several key questions remain: (i) What is the relative importance of predation vs. parasitism in shaping intraspecific variation of behaviour across generations? (ii) What are the contributions of genetic and plastic effects to this behavioural divergence? (iii) And to what extent are responses to predation and parasitism repeatable across independent evolutionary lineages? We addressed these questions using Trinidadian guppies (Poecilia reticulata) (i) varying in their exposure to dangerous fish predators and Gyrodactylus ectoparasites for (ii) both wild-caught F0 and laboratory-reared F2 individuals and coming from (iii) multiple independent evolutionary lineages (i.e. independent drainages). Several key findings emerged. First, a population's history of predation and parasitism influenced behavioural profiles, but to different extent depending on the behaviour considered (activity, shoaling or boldness). Second, we had evidence for some genetic effects of predation regime on behaviour, with differences in activity of F2 laboratory-reared individuals, but not for parasitism, which had only plastic effects on the boldness of wild-caught F0 individuals. Third, the two lineages showed a mixture of parallel and nonparallel responses to predation/parasitism, with parallel responses being stronger for predation than for parasitism and for activity and boldness than for shoaling. These findings suggest that different sets of behaviours provide different pay-offs in alternative predation/parasitism environments and that parasitism has more transient effects in shaping intraspecific variation of behaviour than does predation.
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 | 0.001 | 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".