MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4286496205 · doi:10.1111/jeb.14066

Genetic and environmental drivers of colour and pattern in the Australian jacky dragon ( <i>Amphibolurus muricatus</i> )

2022· article· en· W4286496205 on OpenAlexaff
Rebecca S. Raynal, Lisa E. Schwanz, Julia Riley, Kate D. L. Umbers

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evolutionary Biology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsMount Allison University
FundersAustralian Research Council
KeywordsBiologyGenetic variationLizardHatchlingZoologyPhenotypic plasticityEcologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The underlying drivers of variation in the colouration (colour and pattern) of animals can be genetic, non-genetic, or more likely, a combination of both. Understanding the role of heritable genetic elements, as well as non-genetic factors such as age, habitat or temperature, in shaping colouration can provide insight into the evolution and function of these traits, as well as the speed of response to changing environments. This project examined the genetic and non-genetic drivers of continuous variation in colouration in a lizard, the jacky dragon (Amphibolurus muricatus). We leveraged a large captive experiment that manipulated parental and offspring thermal environment to simultaneously estimate the genetic and non-genetic drivers of variation in colouration. We found that the overall brightness, the elongation of the longitudinal stripes on the dorsum and the contrast between light and dark patches of the pattern were all heritable. Colouration varied according to the age of the hatchling; however, the thermal environment of neither the parents nor offspring contributed significantly to colouration. It appears that developmental plasticity and maternal effects associated with temperature are not important drivers of variation in our measures of colouration.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.252
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.195 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evolutionary BiologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207