MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6948233438 · doi:10.5061/dryad.tdz08kpxr

Dispersal of Drosophila melanogaster over landscapes with different food patch structures

2020· dataset· en· W6948233438 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2020
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiological dispersalDrosophila melanogasterForagingPopulationDistribution (mathematics)Drosophila (subgenus)Allele

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Theoretical and empirical studies often show that within populations, individuals vary in their propensity to disperse. We aspired to understand how this behavioural variation is impacted by the distribution and pattern of food patches across a landscape. In a series of experiments, we examined how inter-patch distance and the distribution of food patches influenced dispersal in wild-type strains of Drosophila melanogaster with natural allelic variants of the foraging (for) gene known to influence dispersal in this species. The “rover” strain was homozygous for the forR allele (more dispersive) whereas the “sitter” strain was homozygous for fors (less dispersive). We also assessed an outbred population of flies with an unknown dispersal propensity. Dispersal was assayed in a multi-patch lab arena (25 cells, 5 x 5 array). In the inter-patch distance trials, landscapes of two different sizes (small vs. large) were used, both with food in all 25 cells. Dispersal was reduced in the large landscape relative to the small landscape for all three fly strains. Sitter dispersal was lowest relative to both rovers and the outbred flies, whose dispersal tendencies were similar. In the patch distribution trials, flies were assayed in landscapes with varying distribution and number of cells containing food. Dispersal generally increased as the number of patches with food increased, however, rovers and sitters adopted similar dispersal strategies when food was fixed and limited. Conversely, their strategies differed when the total amount of food increased along with the number of patches. We found that both the inter-patch distance and distribution can influence dispersal. However, the effect of inter-patch distance and distribution on dispersal depends on genotype x environment interaction (G x E). Our findings highlight the importance of considering G x E when assessing how dispersal strategies and landscape dynamics influence the distribution of animal communities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207