MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884069767 · doi:10.1111/jeb.13354

Differential predation alters pigmentation in threespine stickleback (<i>Gasterosteus aculeatus</i>)

2018· article· en· W2884069767 on OpenAlexafffund
M. Gygax, Ana K. Rentsch, Seth M. Rudman, Diana J. Rennison

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evolutionary Biology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsLimnetic zoneGasterosteusSticklebackBiologyPredationTroutSympatric speciationEcotypeEcologyZoologySalvelinusBenthic zoneFisheryLittoral zoneFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Animal pigmentation plays a key role in many biological interactions, including courtship and predator avoidance. Sympatric benthic and limnetic ecotypes of threespine stickleback ( Gasterosteus aculeatus ) exhibit divergent pigment patterns. To test whether differential predation by cutthroat trout contributes to the differences in pigmentation seen between the ecotypes, we used a within‐generation selection experiment on F 2 benthic–limnetic hybrids. After 10 months of differential selection, we compared the pigmentation of fish under trout predation to control fish not exposed to trout predation. We found that stickleback exhibited more lateral barring in ponds with trout predation. Ponds with trout were also less turbid, and a greater degree of barring was negatively correlated with the magnitude of turbidity across pond replicates. A more benthic diet, a proxy for habitat use, was also correlated with greater lateral barring and green dorsal pigmentation. These patterns suggest that differential exposure to cutthroat trout predation may explain the divergence in body pigmentation between benthic and limnetic ecotypes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evolutionary BiologySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207