On the Perils of Ignoring Evolution in Networks
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Here, we reply to the stimulating comments from Sagoff [ 1. Sagoff M. Ecological networks: response to Segar et al. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2020; 35: 862-863 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (2) Google Scholar ] and Rossberg [ 2. Rossberg A.G. What are the fundamental questions regarding evolution in ecological networks?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2020; 35: 863-865 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1) Google Scholar ] on Segar et al. [ 3. Segar S.T. et al. The role of evolution in shaping ecological networks. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2020; 35: 454-466 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (33) Google Scholar ]. Sagoff posits that species assemblages are largely fortuitous and ephemeral, which thwarts opportunities for coevolutionary processes [ 4. Janzen D.H. On ecological fitting. Oikos. 1985; 45: 308-310 Crossref Google Scholar ]. Given the dynamic nature of ecological communities, have populations from different interacting species had sufficient time in which to generate selective pressure on each other? As Rossberg points out, in long-lasting and highly intimate bipartite networks, ‘frequent co-occurrence of the two taxa’ is required for evolutionary lockstep between vulnerability (v) and foraging (f) traits. Fitness ‘seascapes’ [ 2. Rossberg A.G. What are the fundamental questions regarding evolution in ecological networks?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2020; 35: 863-865 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1) Google Scholar ] stem from constant community turnover: but the adaptive troughs and peaks of the shifting seascape can persist and allow reciprocal evolutionary change if allelic turnover is rapid and selection strong enough. How do we specify ‘frequent co-occurrence’? Since Janzen’s 1985 appraisal of coevolution [ 4. Janzen D.H. On ecological fitting. Oikos. 1985; 45: 308-310 Crossref Google Scholar ], Colpoda protozoans have been through over 53 000 generations: resistance to mosquito predators develops in 50 [ 5. terHorst C.P. et al. Evolution of prey in ecological time reduces the effect size of predators in experimental microcosms. Ecology. 2010; 91: 629-636 Crossref PubMed Scopus (54) Google Scholar ]. We do agree that ecological (nongenetic) fitting is widespread. However, biotic selection within ecological networks does occur, is detectable, and its effects are far from trivial. Ecological Networks: Response to Segar et al.Mark SagoffTrends in Ecology & EvolutionMay 11, 2020In BriefSegar at al. [1] have proposed, ‘The structure of ecological networks reflects the evolutionary history of their biotic components.’ Janzen [2] argued that a ‘major part of the earth's surface may be occupied largely by organisms that are rich in ecological interactions and have virtually no detailed evolutionary history with one another.’ If an ecological network includes these adventitious kinds of organisms and interactions, there is no shared evolutionary history for its structure to reflect. Full-Text PDF What Are the Fundamental Questions Regarding Evolution in Ecological Networks?Axel G. RossbergTrends in Ecology & EvolutionJuly 13, 2020In BriefReviewing ‘The Role of Evolution in Shaping Ecological Networks’ by Segar et al. [1] stirred controversy over the central question [2]. I propose to settle this by defining concepts more clearly, answer other outstanding questions raised by Segar et al., and draw attention to some very different related open fundamental questions. Full-Text PDF Open Access
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».