Effect of migration and environmental heterogeneity on the maintenance of quantitative variation: a simulation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The paradox of high genetic variation observed in traits under stabilizing selection is a longstanding problem in evolutionary theory, as mutation rates are 10-100 times too low to explain observed levels of standing genetic variation under classic models of mutation-selection balance. Here, we use individual-based simulations to explore the effect of various types of environmental heterogeneity on the maintenance of genetic variation (V A ) for a quantitative trait under stabilizing selection. We find that V A is maximized at intermediate migration rates in spatially heterogeneous environments, and that the observed patterns are robust to changes in population size. Spatial environmental heterogeneity increased variation by as much as 10-fold over mutation-selection-balance alone, whereas pure temporal environmental heterogeneity increased variance by only 45% at max. Our results show that some combinations of spatial heterogeneity and migration can maintain considerably more variation than mutation-selection balance, potentially reconciling the discrepancy between theoretical predictions and empirical observations. However, given the narrow regions of parameter space required for this effect, this is unlikely to provide a general explanation for the maintenance of variation. Nonetheless, our results suggest that habitat fragmentation may affect the maintenance of V A and thereby reduce the adaptive capacity of populations.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".