Strong selection is poorly aligned with genetic variation in <i>Ipomoea hederacea</i> : implications for divergence and constraint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The multivariate evolution of populations is the result of the interactions between natural selection, drift, and the underlying genetic structure of the traits involved. Covariances among traits bias responses to selection, and the multivariate axis which describes the greatest genetic variation is expected to be aligned with patterns of divergence across populations. An exception to this expectation is when selection acts on trait combinations lacking genetic variance, which limits evolutionary change. Here we used a common garden field experiment of individuals from 57 populations of Ipomoea hederacea to characterize linear and nonlinear selection on 5 quantitative traits in the field. We then formally compare patterns of selection to previous estimates of within population genetic covariance structure (the G-matrix) and population divergence in these traits. We found that selection is poorly aligned with previous estimates of genetic covariance structure and population divergence. In addition, the trait combinations favored by selection were generally lacking genetic variation, possessing approximately 15%-30% as much genetic variation as the most variable combination of traits. Our results suggest that patterns of population divergence are likely the result of the interplay between adaptive responses, correlated responses, and selection favoring traits lacking genetic variation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".