MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Resource competition and adaptive radiation in a microbial microcosm

2004· article· en· W2149155984 on OpenAlexaff
R. Craig MacLean, Alison L. Dickson, Graham Bell

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology Letters · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrocosmBiologyCompetition (biology)EcologyAdaptation (eye)Pseudomonas fluorescensSympatric speciationResource (disambiguation)PopulationExperimental evolutionSelection (genetic algorithm)Adaptive radiationLocal adaptationHabitatEcological selectionIntraspecific competitionBacteriaDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Theory predicts that competition for shared resources in a monomorphic population generates divergent selection for adaptation to alternative resources. Experimental tests of this hypothesis are scarce. We selected populations of the bacterium Pseudomonas fluorescens in spatially homogeneous microcosms containing a complex mixture of resources. Initially, all populations consisted of two isogenic clones. The outcome of selection was the evolution of a diverse community of genotypes within each population. Sympatric genotypes exhibited differentiation in metabolic traits related to resource acquisition and frequency‐dependent trade‐offs in competitive ability, as we would expect if different genotypes consumed different resources. These results are consistent with the hypothesis of adaptive radiation driven by resource competition. Reconciling the results of this study with those of earlier experiments provides a new interpretation of the ecological causes of adaptive radiation in microbial microcosms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations81
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology LettersSame topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207