MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2510287684 · doi:10.1111/evo.13047

Strong genetic differentiation but not local adaptation toward the range limit of a coastal dune plant

2016· article· en· W2510287684 on OpenAlexafffund
Karen E. Samis, Adriana López‐Villalobos, Christopher G. Eckert

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward IslandQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y TecnologíaMicrosoft Research
KeywordsBiologyLocal adaptationAdaptation (eye)Range (aeronautics)Limit (mathematics)Evolutionary biologyEcologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All species have limited geographic distributions; but the ecological and evolutionary mechanisms causing range limits are largely unknown. That many species' geographic range limits are coincident with niche limits suggests limited evolutionary potential of marginal populations to adapt to conditions experienced beyond the range. We provide a test of range limit theory by combining population genetic analysis of microsatellite polymorphisms with a transplant experiment within, at the edge of, and 60 km beyond the northern range of a coastal dune plant. Contrary to expectations, lifetime fitness increased toward the range limit with highest fitness achieved by most populations at and beyond the range edge. Genetic differentiation among populations was strong, with very low, nondirectional gene flow suggesting range limitation via constraints to dispersal. In contrast, however, local adaptation was negligible, and a distance-dependent decline in fitness only occurred for those populations furthest from home when planted beyond the range limit. These results challenge a commonly held assumption that stable range limits match niche limits, but also raise questions about the unique value of peripheral populations in expanding species' geographical ranges.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.866
Threshold uncertainty score0.213

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations26
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionSame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207