The Interplay between Behavior and Morphology in the Evolutionary Dynamics of Resource Specialization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We analyze the consequences of diet choice behavior for the evolutionary dynamics of foraging traits by means of a mathematical model. The model is characterized by the following features. Consumers feed on two different substitutable resources that are distributed in a fine-grained manner. On encounter with a resource item, consumers decide whether to attack it so as to maximize their energy intake. Simultaneously, evolutionary change occurs in morphological traits involved in the foraging process. The assumption here is that evolution is constrained by a trade-off in the consumer's ability to forage on the alternative resources. The model predicts that flexible diet choice behavior can guide the direction of evolutionary change and mediate coexistence of different consumer types. Such polymorphisms can evolve from a monomorphic population at evolutionary branching points and also at points where a small genetic change in a trait can provoke a sharp instantaneous and nongenetic change in choice behavior. In the case of weak trade-offs, the evolutionary dynamics of a dimorphic consumer population can lead to alternative evolutionarily stable communities. The robustness of these predictions is checked with individual-based simulations and by relaxing the assumption of optimally foraging consumers.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".