Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

Phenotype influence on Allosaur Agents.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Phenotype expressions and advantage factors.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 1.

Phenotype heredity.

Allosaur Agent offspring phenotypes were determined based on a hereditary gradient of Advantage Factors, which were bound to an expression magnitude. In this example, the parent Agent will have offspring with an 80% chance of having “medium” tailfat, but 10% chance to be small, and 10% to be big.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 3.

Phenotypes and potential offspring phenotypes.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Fig 2.

Phenotype compositions.

In year 140, most surviving Allosaur Agents on the final step had improved hearing and bite_force attributes compared to the founding population, but detection_range and tailfat were negatively selected. Year 144 resulted in a population with improved detection_range, while hearing and bite_force in contrast were negatively selected.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Reproductive probability distribution of high tailfat individuals.

Kernel density estimation for the lifetime reproductive success distribution of Allosaur Agents. Allosaur Agents with tailfat above 35 kg per feeding event had more than 0.28 likelihood probability of producing 1 offspring during their lifetimes, whereas in all others, the probability was ca. 0.12, i.e., a factor of 2.33 times higher for tailfat > 35kg than for all other tailfat phenotypes. This fitness pattern agrees with other empirical and modeled population data, regardless of life-history scheme [66].

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Reproductive probability distribution of high bite_force individuals.

Reproductive success distribution of high bite_force individuals. Agents with high bite_force were less likely to produce offspring than all others.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Reproductive success of Allosaur Agents vs. tailfat expression.

Reproductive success of Allosaur Agents vs tailfat expression.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Reproductive success of Allosaur Agents vs carcass detection_range.

Average Allosaur Agent carcass detection_range vs. lifetime reproductive success. Carcass Object detection_range was consistently higher in the most successful Allosaur Agents, demonstrating a clear selective advantage for theropods that could locate sauropod carrion better than their peers. These data suggest it therefore is likely that animals like Allosaurus used olfaction to detect food opportunities in a similar manner.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

Reproductive success of Allosaur Agents vs. bite_force.

The bite_force attribute determined the likelihood an Allosaur Agent would successfully kill a Prey Agent upon encounter. Selective pressure did not favor this attribute in our model, and given that allosaurs and most large allosauroids were poorly adapted to overpower prey, we think it is likely that the mechanisms at work in this model were broadly similar to those present in Mesozoic ecosystems.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Table 4.

Mean attribute expressions grouped by reproductive success.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Extremely large Allosaur Agents.

More »

Table 5 Expand