From genes to ecosystems: an emerging synthesis of eco‐evolutionary dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A synthesis is underway between ecology and evolution, partly brought about by the realization that evolutionary change can take place on ecological timescales (Hairston et al., 2005; Whitham et al., 2006; Carroll et al., 2007). This synthesis attempts to understand the dynamic interplay of ecological and evolutionary processes that results from natural or anthropogenic selective forces (Lankau & Strauss, 2007). Moreover, this synthesis represents an integration of several ‘genes to ecosystems’ approaches, including ‘ecological stochiometry’, ‘community genetics’ (Whitham et al., 2006) and ‘niche construction’. United under the framework of ‘eco-evolutionary dynamics’, these ideas seek to link genetic and phenotypic variation to population dynamics, biodiversity and ecosystem function, and place these disciplines in a dynamic evolutionary framework (i.e. understanding the ecological consequences of evolutionary processes and the evolutionary consequences of ecological interactions). This is not an easy endeavor because any such synthesis needs to be broadly multidisciplinary and integrative (Whitham et al., 2006). And yet the potential pay offs are large given that genetic variation across plant and animal systems can have extended consequences at the population, community and ecosystem levels. These consequences can come in the form of the vital rates of survival, reproduction and migration, as well as arthropod and aquatic macroinvertebrate diversity, soil microbial communities, trophic interactions, carbon storage, soil nitrogen availability, dissolved organic nitrogen and production of primary producers (Whitham et al., 2006; Bailey et al., 2009; Ezard et al., 2009; Harmon et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2009; Palkovacs et al., 2009; Post & Palkovacs, 2009). The effects of genetic or phenotypic variation are not limited to single systems or to ecologically important species (i.e. keystone species, dominant species, foundation species, ecosystem engineers), although these are excellent places to start looking. Instead, genetic variation seems to have effects that are broadly distributed across plant and animal systems - and these effects can be similar in magnitude to those of nonevolutionary ecological variables, such as climate, species invasion and habitat quality (Hairston et al., 2005; Bailey et al., 2009; Ezard et al., 2009; Palkovacs et al., 2009; Post & Palkovacs, 2009).
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 | 0.000 | 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".