Asexuality shapes traits in a hybrid fish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animal morphology is influenced by several factors, including gonadal development and gametogenesis. Although their effects are well documented in male/female differentiation, much less is known about same-sex effects, such as those caused by their mode of reproduction. Here, using geometric morphometric analyses, we compare two groups of all-female triploid hybrid fish Chrosomus eos × eos-neogaeus, that differ only by their sexual and asexual reproductive strategies. We demonstrate that morphological differences arise from factors inherently associated with their mode of reproduction, with results replicated in two distinct lineages and in natural and common garden environments. Such differences provide additional insight about the costs and benefits of both reproductive strategies, which have mostly been of a demographic, population genetic, or genetic nature. In particular, these findings have important implications for the ecology of asexual organisms and contribute to the study of sex evolution by adding complexity to the paradox of sex theory. Morphology associated with reproductive strategy in animals can be difficult to isolate. Here, the authors use geometric morphometrics to study triploid hybrid Chrosomus fish that reproduce sexually and asexually, identifying morphological differences associated with reproductive strategy.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".