The impact of rapid evolution on population dynamics in the wild: experimental test of eco-evolutionary dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rapid evolution challenges the assumption that evolution is too slow to impact short-term ecological dynamics. This insight motivates the study of 'Eco-Evolutionary Dynamics' or how evolution and ecological processes reciprocally interact on short time scales. We tested how rapid evolution impacts concurrent population dynamics using an aphid (Myzus persicae) and an undomesticated host (Hirschfeldia incana) in replicated wild populations. We manipulated evolvability by creating non-evolving (single clone) and potentially evolving (two-clone) aphid populations that contained genetic variation in intrinsic growth rate. We observed significant evolution in two-clone populations whether or not they were exposed to predators and competitors. Evolving populations grew up to 42% faster and attained up to 67% higher density, compared with non-evolving control populations but only in treatments exposed to competitors and predators. Increased density also correlates with relative fitness of competing clones suggesting a full eco-evolutionary dynamic cycle defined as reciprocal interactions between evolution and density.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".