Fitness declines towards range limits and local adaptation to climate affect dispersal evolution during climate‐induced range shifts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dispersal ability will largely determine whether species track their climatic niches during climate change, a process especially important for populations at contracting (low-latitude/low-elevation) range limits that otherwise risk extinction. We investigate whether dispersal evolution at contracting range limits is facilitated by two processes that potentially enable edge populations to experience and adjust to the effects of climate deterioration before they cause extinction: (i) climate-induced fitness declines towards range limits and (ii) local adaptation to a shifting climate gradient. We simulate a species distributed continuously along a temperature gradient using a spatially explicit, individual-based model. We compare range-wide dispersal evolution during climate stability vs. directional climate change, with uniform fitness vs. fitness that declines towards range limits (RLs), and for a single climate genotype vs. multiple genotypes locally adapted to temperature. During climate stability, dispersal decreased towards RLs when fitness was uniform, but increased when fitness declined towards RLs, due to highly dispersive genotypes maintaining sink populations at RLs, increased kin selection in smaller populations, and an emergent fitness asymmetry that favoured dispersal in low-quality habitat. However, this initial dispersal advantage at low-fitness RLs did not facilitate climate tracking, as it was outweighed by an increased probability of extinction. Locally adapted genotypes benefited from staying close to their climate optima; this selected against dispersal under stable climates but for increased dispersal throughout shifting ranges, compared to cases without local adaptation. Dispersal increased at expanding RLs in most scenarios, but only increased at the range centre and contracting RLs given local adaptation to climate.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".