MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911590456 · doi:10.1111/evo.13691

Local adaptation in dispersal in multi‐resource landscapes

2019· article· en· W2911590456 on OpenAlexaff
Meredith Cenzer, Leithen K. M’Gonigle

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiological dispersalResource (disambiguation)BiologyEcologyAdaptation (eye)Local adaptationSpatial ecologySpatial analysisEvolutionary biologyGeographyComputer sciencePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The distribution of resources in space has important consequences for the evolution of dispersal-related traits. Dispersal moderates patterns of gene flow and, consequently, the potential for local adaptation to spatially differentiated resource types. We lack both models and experiments that evaluate how dispersal evolves in landscapes with multiple resources. Here, we investigate the evolution of dispersal in landscapes that contain two resource types that differ in their spatial autocorrelations. Individuals may possess ecological traits that give them a fitness advantage on one or the other resource. We find that resources differing in their spatial autocorrelation select for different optimal dispersal strategies and, further, that some multi-resource landscapes can support the stable coexistence of distinct dispersal strategies. Whether divergence in dispersal strategies between resource specialists occurs depends on the underlying structure of the resources and the degree of linkage between dispersal strategies and ecological specialization. This work indicates that the spatial autocorrelation of resources is an important factor in determining when evolutionary branching is likely to occur, and sheds light on when secondary isolating mechanisms should arise between locally adapted specialists.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionSame topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207