Morphology, Ecology, and Biogeography of Independent Origins of Cleaning Behavior Around the World
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Members of an ecological guild may be anticipated to show morphological convergence, as similar functional demands exert similar selective pressures on phenotypes. Nature is rife with examples, however, where such taxa instead exhibit 'incomplete' convergence or even divergence. Incorporating factors such as character displacement by other guild members or variation in ecological specialization itself may therefore be necessary to gain a more complete understanding of what constrains or promotes diversity. Cleaning, a behavior in which species remove and consume ectoparasites from "clientele," has been shown to exhibit variation in specialization and has evolved in a variety of marine habitats around the globe. To determine the extent to which specialization in this tropic strategy has affected phenotypic evolution, we examined the evolution of cleaning behavior in five marine fish families: Labridae, Gobiidae, Pomacanthidae, Pomacentridae, and Embiotocidae. We used a comparative framework to determine patterns of convergence and divergence in body shape and size across non-cleaning and cleaning members within these five clades. Highly specialized obligate cleaning, found in the Indo-Pacific and the Caribbean, evolved in the Labridae and Gobiidae at strikingly similar times. In these two regions, obligate cleaning evolves early, shows convergence on an elongate body shape, and is restricted to species of small body size. Facultative cleaning, shown either throughout ontogeny or predominately in the juvenile phase, exhibits a much more varied phenotype, especially in geographic regions where obligate cleaning occurs. Collectively, our results are consistent with varying extents of an ecological specialization constraining or spurring morphological evolution in recurrent ways across regions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".