Starve a competitor: evolution of luxury consumption as a competitive strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organisms are often observed to acquire an excess of non-limiting resources, a process known as luxury consumption. Luxury consumption has been largely treated as a bet hedging strategy for temporal variation in resource supply, but may also function as a competitive strategy. We incorporate luxury resource consumption into a derivation of the classic resource ratio model for competition between terrestrial plant, and explore its consequences for population dynamics and competition. We show that luxury consumption reduces the potential for coexistence between two species competing for two resources. Furthermore, we demonstrate that luxury consumption can be selected for because of the competitive advantage that luxury consumers gain. Luxury consumption evolves when competition for resources is local rather than global, there is potential for coexistence between the two species and the competitive environment remains stable over a sufficient period of time to allow selection to act. The evolutionary outcome can be either extinction of one of the competing species or coexistence of the two species with maximum luxury consumption. The potential for selection to favor luxury consumption is well predicted by the competitive outcome between individuals of the two species with and without luxury consumption.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".