The genetics of adaptation to discrete heterogeneous environments: frequent mutation or large‐effect alleles can allow range expansion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Range expansions are complex evolutionary and ecological processes. From an evolutionary standpoint, a populations' adaptive capacity can determine the success or failure of expansion. Using individual-based simulations, we model range expansion over a two-dimensional, approximately continuous landscape. We investigate the ability of populations to adapt across patchy environmental gradients and examine how the effect sizes of mutations influence the ability to adapt to novel environments during range expansion. We find that genetic architecture and landscape patchiness both have the ability to change the outcome of adaptation and expansion over the landscape. Adaptation to new environments succeeds via many mutations of small effect or few of large effect, but not via the intermediate between these cases. Higher genetic variance contributes to increased ability to adapt, but an alternative route of successful adaptation can proceed from low genetic variance scenarios with alleles of sufficiently large effect. Steeper environmental gradients can prevent adaptation and range expansion on both linear and patchy landscapes. When the landscape is partitioned into local patches with sharp changes in phenotypic optimum, the local magnitude of change between subsequent patches in the environment determines the success of adaptation to new patches during expansion.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".