MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Refining the conditions for sympatric ecological speciation

2012· article· en· W2112884157 on OpenAlexafffund
Florence Débarre

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evolutionary Biology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSympatric speciationDisruptive selectionBiologyEcological speciationAssortative matingGenetic algorithmIncipient speciationSympatryEcologyEvolutionary biologyTraitSelection (genetic algorithm)Natural selectionMatingGenetic variationComputer scienceGene flow

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Can speciation occur in a single population when different types of resources are available, in the absence of any geographical isolation, or any spatial or temporal variation in selection? The controversial topics of sympatric speciation and ecological speciation have already stimulated many theoretical studies, most of them agreeing on the fact that mechanisms generating disruptive selection, some level of assortment, and enough heterogeneity in the available resources, are critical for sympatric speciation to occur. Few studies, however, have combined the three factors and investigated their interactions. In this article, I analytically derive conditions for sympatric speciation in a general model where the distribution of resources can be uni- or bimodal, and where a parameter controls the range of resources that an individual can exploit. This approach bridges the gap between models of a unimodal continuum of resources and Levene-type models with discrete resources. I then test these conditions against simulation results from a recently published article (Thibert-Plante & Hendry, 2011, J. Evol. Biol. 24: 2186-2196) and confirm that sympatric ecological speciation is favoured when (i) selection is disruptive (i.e. individuals with an intermediate trait are at a local fitness minimum), (ii) resources are differentiated enough and (iii) mating is assortative. I also discuss the role of mating preference functions and the need (or lack thereof) for bimodality in resource distributions for diversification.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.310
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations18
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evolutionary BiologySame topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207