Feedbacks link ecosystem ecology and evolution across spatial and temporal scales: Empirical evidence and future directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Unifying ecosystem ecology and evolutionary biology promises a more complete understanding of the processes that link different levels of biological organization across space and time. Feedbacks across levels of organization link theory associated with eco‐evolutionary dynamics, niche construction and the geographic mosaic theory of co‐evolution. We describe a conceptual model, which builds upon previous work that shows how feedback among different levels of biological organization can link ecosystem and evolutionary processes over space and time. We provide empirical examples across terrestrial and aquatic systems that indicate broad generality of the conceptual framework and discuss its macroevolutionary consequences. Our conceptual model is based on three premises: genetically based species interactions can vary spatially and temporally from positive to neutral (i.e. no net feedback) to negative and drive evolutionary change; this evolutionary change can drive divergence in niche construction and ecosystem function; and lastly, such ecosystem‐level effects can reinforce spatiotemporal variation in evolutionary dynamics. Just as evolution can alter ecosystem function locally and across the landscape differently, variation in ecosystem processes can drive evolution locally and across the landscape differently. By highlighting our current knowledge of eco‐evolutionary feedbacks in ecosystems, as well as information gaps, we provide a foundation for understanding the interplay between biodiversity and ecosystem function through an eco‐evolutionary lens. A plain language summary is available for this article.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".