Coevolution of competing <i>Callosobruchus</i> species does not stabilize coexistence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Interspecific resource competition is expected to select for divergence in resource use, weakening interspecific relative to intraspecific competition, thus promoting stable coexistence. More broadly, because interspecific competition reduces fitness, any mechanism of interspecific competition should generate selection favoring traits that weaken interspecific competition. However, species also can adapt to competition by increasing their competitive ability, potentially destabilizing coexistence. We reared two species of bean beetles, the specialist Callosobruchus maculatus and the generalist C. chinensis, in allopatry and sympatry on a mixture of adzuki beans and lentils, and assayed mutual invasibility after four, eight, and twelve generations of evolution. Contrary to the expectation that coevolution of competitors will weaken interspecific competition, the rate of mutual invasibility did not differ between sympatry and allopatry. Rather, the invasion rate of C. chinensis, but not C. maculatus, increased with duration of evolution, as C. chinensis adapted to lentils without experiencing reduced adaptation to adzuki beans, and regardless of the presence or absence of C. maculatus. Our results highlight that evolutionary responses to interspecific competition promote stable coexistence only under specific conditions that can be difficult to produce in practice.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".