MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050587136 · doi:10.1002/ece3.850

The magnitude of local adaptation under genotype‐dependent dispersal

2013· article· en· W2050587136 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniel I. Bolnick, Sarah P. Otto

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology and Evolution · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHoward Hughes Medical Institute
KeywordsBiological dispersalLocal adaptationAdaptation (eye)BiologyEcologyPopulationEvolutionary biologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dispersal moves individuals from patches where their immediate ancestors were successful to sites where their genotypes are untested. As a result, dispersal generally reduces fitness, a phenomenon known as "migration load." The strength of migration load depends on the pattern of dispersal and can be dramatically lessened or reversed when individuals move preferentially toward patches conferring higher fitness. Evolutionary ecologists have long modeled nonrandom dispersal, focusing primarily on its effects on population density over space, the maintenance of genetic variation, and reproductive isolation. Here, we build upon previous work by calculating how the extent of local adaptation and the migration load are affected when individuals differ in their dispersal rate in a genotype-dependent manner that alters their match to their environment. Examining a one-locus, two-patch model, we show that local adaptation occurs through a combination of natural selection and adaptive dispersal. For a substantial portion of parameter space, adaptive dispersal can be the predominant force generating local adaptation. Furthermore, genetic load may be largely averted with adaptive dispersal whenever individuals move before selective deaths occur. Thus, to understand the mechanisms driving local adaptation, biologists must account for the extent and nature of nonrandom, genotype-dependent dispersal, and the potential for adaptation via spatial sorting of genotypes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations108
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology and EvolutionSame topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207