Does increased heat resistance result in higher susceptibility to predation? A test using <i>Drosophila melanogaster</i> selection and hardening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heat resistance of ectotherms can be increased both by plasticity and evolution, but these effects may have trade-offs resulting from biotic interactions. Here, we test for predation costs in Drosophila melanogaster populations with altered heat resistance produced by adult hardening and directional selection for increased heat resistance. In addition, we also tested for genetic trade-offs by testing heat resistance in lines that have evolved under increased predation risk. We show that while 35/37 °C hardening increases heat resistance as expected, it does not increase predation risk from jumping spiders or mantids; in fact, there was an indication that survival may have increased under predation following a triple 37 °C compared to a single 35 °C hardening treatment. Flies that survived a 39 °C selection cycle showed lower survival under predation, suggesting a predation cost of exposure to a more severe heat stress. There was, however, no correlated response to selection because survival did not differ between control and selected lines after selection was relaxed for one or two generations. In addition, lines selected for increased predation risk did not differ in heat resistance. Our findings suggest independent evolutionary responses to predation and heat as measured in laboratory assays, and no costs of heat hardening on susceptibility to 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 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".