The Evolution of Social Organization: Climate Influences Variation in Drosophilid Social Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Cultural norms, collective decisions, reproductive behaviour, and pathogen transmission all emerge from interaction patterns within animal social groups. These patterns of interaction support group-level phenomena that can influence an individual’s fitness. The aim of this study is to understand the evolution of social organization in Drosophila. Using a comparative ecological, phylogenetic and behavioural approach, we studied the different properties of social interaction networks (SINs) formed by 20 drosophilids and the different ways these species interact. We investigate whether animal network structures arise from common ancestry, a response to the species’ past ecological environment, other social behaviours, or a combination of these factors. We demonstrate that differences in past climate predicted the species’ current SIN properties. The drosophilid phylogeny offered no value to predicting species’ differences in SINs through phylogenetic signal tests. This suggests group-level social behaviours in drosophilid species are shaped by divergent climates. However, we find that the distance at which flies interact correlated with the drosophilid phylogeny, indicating that behavioural elements that comprise SINs have remained largely unchanged in their recent evolutionary history. We find a significant correlation of leg length to social distance, outlining the interdependence of anatomy and complex social structures. Although SINs display a complex evolutionary relationship across drosophilids, this study provides evidence of selective pressures acting on social behaviour in Drosophila. We speculate that conserved molecular mechanisms may be shared across drosophilids deep in their evolutionary history, similar to other pervasive mechanisms, like biological clocks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".