The ecological and evolutionary implications of microrefugia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Pleistocene microrefugia (or cryptic refugia) may be distinguished from macrorefugia (or conventional refugia) on the basis of two characteristics. First, microrefugia were smaller than macrorefugia and consequently supported smaller refugial populations. Second, microrefugia harboured less diverse biotic communities than macrorefugia. We propose that these characteristics have important implications for the ecology and evolution of species and populations that have a history of isolation in microrefugia. We propose four hypotheses regarding the evolution of microrefugial populations: (1) small effective population sizes associated with survival in microrefugia lead to reduced genetic diversity and influence the evolution of mating systems; (2) differences in environmental conditions between macro‐ and microrefugia lead to local adaptation; (3) reduced diversity increases ecological opportunity and promotes ecological divergence in microrefugia; and (4) reduced species diversity in microrefugia allows more specific species interactions and promotes coevolution among species. We urge biogeographers to study the evolutionary implications of isolation in microrefugia.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".