Geographic patterns in the distribution of social systems in terrestrial arthropods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of ecology in the evolution and maintenance of arthropod sociality has received increasing research attention in recent years. In some organisms, such as halictine bees, polistine wasps, and social spiders, researchers are investigating the environmental factors that may contribute to high levels of variation in the degree of sociality exhibited both among and within species. Within lineages that include only eusocial members, such as ants and termites, studies focus more on identifying extrinsic factors that may contribute to the dramatic variation in colony size, number of queens, and division of labour that is evident across these species. In this review, I propose a comparative approach that seeks to identify environmental factors that may have a common influence across such divergent social arthropod groups. I suggest that seeking common biogeographic patterns in the distribution of social systems or key social traits may help us to identify ecological factors that play a common role in shaping the evolution of sociality across different organisms. I first review previous studies of social gradients that form along latitudinal and altitudinal axes. Within families and within species, many organisms show an increasing degree of sociality at lower latitudes and altitudes. In a smaller number of cases, organisms form larger groups or found nests cooperatively at higher latitudes and altitudes. I then describe several environmental factors that vary consistently along such gradients, including climate variables and abundance of predators, and outline their proposed role in the social systems of terrestrial arthropods. Finally, I map distributions of a social trait against several climatic factors in five case studies to demonstrate how future comparative studies could inform empirical research.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".