Data: the complex ecology of genitalia: gonopodium length and allometry in the Trinidadian guppy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Male genitalia present an extraordinary pattern of rapid divergence in animals with internal fertilization, which is usually attributed to sexual selection. However, the effect of ecological factors on genitalia divergence could also be important, especially so in animals with non-retractable genitalia because of their stronger interaction with the surrounding environment in comparison to animals with retractable genitalia. Here we examine the potential of a pervasive ecological factor (predation) to influence the length and allometry of the male genitalia in guppies. We sampled guppies from pairs of low-predation (LP) and high-predation (HP) populations in seven rivers in Trinidad, and measured their body and gonopodium length. A key finding was that that HP adult males do not have consistently longer gonopodia than do LP adult males, as had been described in previous work. However, we did find such divergence for juvenile males: HP juveniles have longer gonopodia than do LP juveniles. We therefore suggest that an evolutionary trend toward the development of longer gonopodia in HP males (as seen in the juveniles) is erased after maturity owing to the higher mortality of mature males with longer gonopodia. Beyond these generalities, gonopodium length and gonopodium allometry were remarkably variable among populations even within a predation regime, thus indicating strong context dependence to their development/evolution. Our findings highlight the complex dynamics of genitalia evolution in Trinidadian guppies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".