Compiling forty years of guppy research to investigate the factors contributing to (non)parallel evolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Examples of parallel evolution have been crucial for our understanding of adaptation via natural selection. However, strong parallelism is not always observed even in seemingly similar environments where natural selection is expected to favour similar phenotypes. Leveraging this variation in parallelism within well-researched study systems can provide insight into the factors that contribute to variation in adaptive responses. Here we analyse the results of 36 studies reporting 446 average trait values in Trinidadian guppies, Poecilia reticulata, from different predation regimes. We examine how the extent of predator-driven phenotypic parallelism is influenced by six factors: sex, trait type, rearing environment, ecological complexity, evolutionary history, and time since colonization. Analyses show that parallel evolution in guppies is highly variable and weak on average, with only 24.7% of the variation among populations being explained by predation regime. Levels of parallelism appeared to be especially weak for colour traits, and parallelism decreased with increasing complexity of evolutionary history (i.e., when estimates of parallelism from populations within a single drainage were compared to estimates of parallelism from populations pooled between two major drainages). Suggestive - but not significant - trends that warrant further research include interactions between the sexes and different trait categories. Quantifying and accounting for these and other sources of variation among evolutionary 'replicates' can be leveraged to better understand the extent to which seemingly similar environments drive parallel and nonparallel aspects of phenotypic divergence.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".