Delusions of grandeur: Seed count is not a good fitness proxy under individual variation in phenology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of fitness is central to evolutionary biology, yet it is difficult to define and to measure. In plant biology, fitness is often measured as seed count. However, under an array of circumstances, seed count may be a biased proxy of fitness, for example when individuals vary in allocation to sexual versus asexual reproduction. A more subtle example, but also likely to be important in natural populations, is when interindividual variation in conditions during development results in variation in offspring quality among seed parents. In monocarpic (semelparous) plants, this is expected to result from variation in effective season length experienced among individuals that reach reproductive maturity at different times. Here, we manipulate growing season length to ask whether seed count is an accurate representation of parental fitness in the monocarpic herb Lobelia inflata. Simple seed count suggests a paradoxical fitness advantage under constrained-season length. However, we find that the apparent fitness advantage of a constrained-season length is overridden by low relative per-seed fitness. Furthermore, the fitness deficit in the constrained environment is associated primarily with an accelerating decrease in viability and seedling survival in seeds derived from fruits produced progressively later in the season. In this study, the overall fitness value of a seed under a constrained season is 0.774 of that observed under a long season.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".