MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983531729 · doi:10.1073/pnas.0601575103

Experimental evidence that predation promotes divergence in adaptive radiation

2006· article· en· W1983531729 on OpenAlexafffund
Patrik Nosil, Bernard J. Crespi

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAdaptive radiationPredationBiologyCompetition (biology)Evolutionary biologyEcologyDivergence (linguistics)EcotypeSelection (genetic algorithm)Adaptation (eye)Lineage (genetic)Adaptive valuePopulationAdaptive strategiesPhylogeneticsNeuroscienceGeneticsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adaptive radiation is the evolution of ecological and phenotypic diversity within a rapidly multiplying lineage. Recent studies have identified general patterns in adaptive radiation and inferred that resource competition is a primary factor driving phenotypic divergence. The role and importance of other processes, such as predation, remains controversial. Here we use Timema stick insects to show that adaptive radiation can be driven by divergent selection from visual predators. Ecotypes using different host-plant species satisfy criteria for the early stages of adaptive radiation and differ in quantitative aspects of color, color pattern, body size, and body shape. A manipulative field experiment demonstrates that the direction and strength of divergent selection on these traits is strongly positively correlated with the direction and magnitude of their population divergence in nature but only when selection is estimated in the presence of predation. Our results indicate that both competition and predation may commonly serve as mechanisms of adaptive radiation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.438
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.124
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.159 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations277
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207