Adaptive Radiation and Ecological Opportunity in Sulawesi and Philippine Fanged Frog (<i>Limnonectes</i>) Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because island communities are derived from mainland communities, they are often less diverse by comparison. However, reduced complexity of island communities can also present ecological opportunities. For example, amphibian diversity on Sulawesi Island is lower than it is in the Philippines, but Sulawesi supports a surprising diversity of Sulawesi fanged frogs (Limnonectes). Here we examine molecular, morphological, and geographical variation of fanged frogs from these two regions. Using genealogical concordance, morphology, and a Bayesian approach to species delimitation, we identified 13 species on Sulawesi, only four of which have been previously described. After evolutionary history is accounted for, a model with multiple body size optima in sympatric species is favored over a "random-walk" model of body size evolution. Additionally, morphological variation is higher among sympatric than nonsympatric species on Sulawesi but not in the Philippines. These findings suggest that adaptive radiation of fanged frogs on Sulawesi was driven by natural selection to infiltrate ecological niches occupied by other frog lineages in the Philippines. This supports a role of ecological opportunity in community assembly: diversification in mature communities, such as the Philippines, is limited by a dearth of unoccupied ecological niches. On Sulawesi, evolutionary novelties originated in a predictable and replicated fashion in response to opportunities presented by a depauperate ancestral community.
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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".