Effects of intraspecific phenotypic variation on species coexistence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intraspecific variation can promote or inhibit species coexistence, both by increasing species' competitive abilities, and by altering the relative strengths of intraspecific and interspecific competition. Effects of intraspecific variation on coexistence can occur via complementarity of different variants, and via a selection effect: initially-variable populations are more likely to contain highly competitive variants that might determine the ability of the population as a whole to both invade and resist invasion. We tested the effects of intraspecific variation and composition on coexistence by assaying the mutual invasibility of populations of two competing bean weevil species (Callosobruchus maculatus and C. chinensis) when each was initiated with one, three, or five genetically- and phenotypically-distinct lineages. Our results reveal that intraspecific variation is a double-edged sword for species coexistence. Increasing intraspecific variation increased species' abilities to invade, and to resist invasion, via selection effects and intraspecific niche complementarity among conspecific lineages, thereby creating the potential for exclusion among mismatched competitors. But intraspecific variation also increased the scope for resource partitioning, creating the potential for stable coexistence. Stable coexistence occurred only when intraspecific variation caused species to exhibit both relatively evenly-matched competitive abilities and sufficiently-strong resource partitioning. Our work explains the conflicting results of previous studies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".