Data from: Experimental evolution of bet hedging under manipulated environmental uncertainty in Neurospora crassa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
All organisms are faced with environmental uncertainty. Bet-hedging theory expects unpredictable selection to result in the evolution of traits that maximize the geometric-mean fitness even though such traits appear to be detrimental over the shorter term. Despite the centrality of fitness measures to evolutionary analysis, no direct test of the geometric-mean fitness principle exists. Here, we directly distinguish between predictions of competing fitness maximization principles by testing Cohen's 1966 classic bet-hedging model using the fungus Neurospora crassa. The simple prediction is that propagule dormancy will evolve in proportion to the frequency of ‘bad’ years, whereas the prediction of the alternative arithmetic-mean principle is the evolution of zero dormancy as long as the expectation of a bad year is less than 0.5. Ascospore dormancy fraction in N. crassa was allowed to evolve under five experimental selection regimes that differed in the frequency of unpredictable ‘bad years’. Results were consistent with bet-hedging theory: final dormancy fraction in 12 genetic lineages across 88 independently evolving samples was proportional to the frequency of bad years, and evolved both upwards and downwards as predicted from a range of starting dormancy fractions. These findings suggest that selection results in adaptation to variable rather than to expected environments.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.011 |
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".