Neglected patterns of variation in transgenerational plasticity: The importance of different sources of environmental variation differs across ages and sexes in a cyprinid fish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Adaptive transgenerational plasticity (TGP) requires individuals to integrate environmental experience across multiple sources. However, few empirical studies have considered that the relative relevance of certain sources might vary across ontogeny and sexes. Here, we address this knowledge gap by studying inducible antipredator defences, one of the most convincing examples of TGP. We assessed individual and combined effects of perceived high predation risk in mothers, fathers, caring males and personal environments on the morphology of juvenile, adult male and adult female cyprinids Pimephales promelas . Parental rather than personal environmental experience determined morphological defence expression across ages and sexes, likely because parents had a longer sampling period. In juveniles and adult males, egg‐mediated environmental experience outweighed sperm‐mediated environmental experience in the induction of body shape differences, likely because eggs can transmit information beyond epigenomes. However, in adult females, where body shape responses can be interpreted as life‐history plasticity, information from egg and sperm were equally important, likely resulting from different integration mechanisms between morphological and life‐history plasticity. The importance of care‐mediated relative to gamete‐mediated variation changed between juveniles and adult males, likely because they represent short‐ and long‐term environmental experience, respectively. Instead, in adult females, both sources were again equally important, potentially owing to lag‐times of life‐history plasticity. Parental care intensity only contributed marginally to defence formation. These results highlight age‐ and sex‐specific prioritization of different environmental experiences so as to generate optimal phenotypes. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.
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".