Replicated population divergence caused by localized coevolution? A test of three hypotheses in the red crossbill-lodgepole pine system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several lines of evidence support the hypothesis that local populations of red crossbills (Loxia curvirostra complex) enter into a predator-prey arms race with lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta latifolia) in the absence of competing pine squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus). Nevertheless, the alternative hypotheses that neutral evolution or factors other than squirrels have caused crossbill population differentiation have not been thoroughly tested. We compared crossbill and pine cone morphology between island populations where squirrels are absent or present, and mainland sites where squirrels are present, in order to distinguish among these hypotheses. All comparisons supported an effect of squirrel absence, not island status, on crossbill and cone morphology. Hence our results provide further evidence that strong localized coevolutionary interactions in a geographic mosaic have driven adaptive population differentiation. In addition, vocal differentiation of crossbills was related to the absence of squirrels, but not to island status. As morphological and vocal differentiation is correlated with reproductive isolation in crossbills, the geographic mosaic of coevolution also seems to promote ecological speciation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".