Evolutionary potential of morphological traits across different life‐history stages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite accumulating examples of selection acting on heritable traits in the wild, predicted evolutionary responses are often different from observed phenotypic trends. Various explanations have been suggested for these mismatches. These include within-individual changes across lifespan that can create important variation in genetic architecture of traits and selection acting on them, but also potential problems with the methodological approach used to predict evolutionary responses of traits. Here, we used an 8-year data set on tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) to first assess the effects of differences among three nestling life-history stages on the genetic (co)variances of two morphological traits (body mass and primary feather length) and the selection acting on them over three generations. We then estimated the evolutionary potential of these traits by predicting their evolutionary responses using the breeder's equation and the secondary theorem of selection approaches. Our results showed variation in strength and direction of selection and slight changes in trait variance across ages. Predicted evolutionary responses differed importantly between both approaches for half of the trait-age combinations we studied, suggesting the presence of environmentally induced correlations between focal traits and fitness possibly biasing breeder's equation predictions. Our results emphasize that predictions of evolutionary potential for morphological traits are likely to be highly variable, both in strength and direction, depending on the life stage and method used, thus mitigating our capacity to predict adaptation and persistence of wild populations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".