THE CAUSES OF VARIATION IN TREE SEEDLING TRAITS: THE ROLES OF ENVIRONMENTAL SELECTION VERSUS CHANCE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A key aspect of biodiversity is the great quantitative variation in functional traits observed among species. One perspective asserts that trait values should converge on a single optimum value in a particular selective environment, and consequently trait variation would reflect differences in selective environment, and evolutionary outcomes would be predictable. An alternative perspective asserts that there are likely multiple alternative optima within a particular selective environment, and consequently different lineages would evolve toward different optima due to chance. Because there is evidence for both of these perspectives, there is a long-standing controversy over the relative importance of convergence due to environmental selection versus divergence due to chance in shaping trait variation. Here, I use a model of tree seedling growth and survival to distinguish trait variation associated with multiple alternative optima from variation associated with environmental differences. I show that variation in whole plant traits is best explained by environmental differences, whereas in organ level traits variation is more affected by alternative optima. Consequently, I predict that in nature variation in organ level traits is most closely related to phylogeny, whereas variation in whole plant traits is most closely related to ecology.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".