Local differentiation in the defensive morphology of an invasive zooplankton species is not genetically based
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Evolutionary changes in functional traits represent one possible reason why exotic species spread to become invasive, but empirical studies of the mechanisms driving phenotypic differentiation between populations of invasive species are rare. This study tested whether differences in distal spine length among populations of the invasive cladoceran, Bythotrephes longimanus , could be explained by local adaptation or phenotypic plasticity. We collected Bythotrephes from six lakes and found that distal spine lengths and natural selection on distal spine length differed among populations, but were unrelated to the gape-limitation of the dominant fish predator in the lake from which they were collected. A common garden experiment revealed significant genetic and maternal variation for distal spine length, but phenotypic differences among populations were not genetically based. Phenotypic differences among lakes in this ecologically important trait are, therefore, the result of plasticity and not local adaptation, despite spatially variable selection on this heritable trait. The ability of Bythotrephes to plastically adjust distal spine length may explain the success of this species at invading lake ecosystems with diverse biotic environments.
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) | 0.002 | 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".