Phenotypic plasticity more essential to maintaining variation in host-attachment behaviour than evolutionary trade-offs in a facultatively parasitic mite
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A prevailing hypothesis for the evolution of parasitism posits that the fitness benefits gained from parasitic activity results in selection for and fixation of parasitic strategies. Despite the potential fitness advantage of parasitism, facultative parasites continue to exhibit genetic variation in parasitic behaviour in nature. We hypothesized that evolutionary trade-offs associated with parasitic host-attachment behaviour maintain natural variation observed in attachment behaviour. In this study, we used replicate lines of a facultatively parasitic mite, previously selected for increased host-attachment behaviour to test whether increased attachment trades off with mite fecundity and longevity, as well as the phenotypic plasticity of attachment. We also tested for potential correlated changes in mite morphology. To test for context-dependent trade-offs, mite fecundity and longevity were assayed in the presence or absence of a host. Our results show that selected and control mites exhibited similar fecundities, longevities, attachment plasticities and morphologies, which did not provide evidence for life history trade-offs associated with increased attachment. Surprisingly, phenotypic plasticity in attachment was maintained despite directional selection on the trait, which suggests that phenotypic plasticity likely plays an important role in maintaining attachment variation in natural populations of this facultative parasite.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".