Environmental stress does not increase the mean strength of selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A common intuition among evolutionary biologists and ecologists is that environmental stress will increase the strength of selection against deleterious alleles and among alternate genotypes. However, the strength of selection is determined by the relative fitness differences among genotypes, and there is no theoretical reason why these differences should be exaggerated as mean fitness decreases. We update a recent review of the empirical results pertaining to environmental stress and the strength of selection and find that there is no overall trend towards increased selection under stress, in agreement with other recent analyses of existing data. The majority of past studies measure the strength of selection by quantifying the decrease in fitness imposed by single or multiple mutations in different environments. However, selection rarely acts on one locus independently, and the strength of selection will be determined by variation across the whole genome. We used 20 inbred lines of Drosophila melanogaster to make repeated fitness measurements of the same genotypes in four different environments. This framework allowed us to determine the variation in fitness attributable to genotype across stressful environments and to calculate the opportunity for selection among these genotypes in each stress. Although we found significant decreases in mean fitness in our stressful environments, we did not find any significant differences in the strength of selection among any of the four measured environments. Therefore, in agreement with our updated review, we find no evidence for the oft-cited verbal model that stress increases the strength of 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".