The evolution of climate tolerance in conifer‐feeding aphids in relation to their host's climatic niche
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Climate adaptation has major consequences in the evolution and ecology of all living organisms. Though phytophagous insects are an important component of Earth's biodiversity, there are few studies investigating the evolution of their climatic preferences. This lack of research is probably because their evolutionary ecology is thought to be primarily driven by their interactions with their host plants. Here, we use a robust phylogenetic framework and species‐level distribution data for the conifer‐feeding aphid genus Cinara to investigate the role of climatic adaptation in the diversity and distribution patterns of these host‐specialized insects. Insect climate niches were reconstructed at a macroevolutionary scale, highlighting that climate niche tolerance is evolutionarily labile, with closely related species exhibiting strong climatic disparities. This result may suggest repeated climate niche differentiation during the evolutionary diversification of Cinara . Alternatively, it may merely reflect the use of host plants that occur in disparate climatic zones, and thus, in reality the aphid species' fundamental climate niches may actually be similar but broad. Comparisons of the aphids' current climate niches with those of their hosts show that most Cinara species occupy the full range of the climatic tolerance exhibited by their set of host plants, corroborating the hypothesis that the observed disparity in Cinara species' climate niches can simply mirror that of their hosts. However, 29% of the studied species only occupy a subset of their hosts' climatic zone, suggesting that some aphid species do indeed have their own climatic limitations. Our results suggest that in host‐specialized phytophagous insects, host associations cannot always adequately describe insect niches and abiotic factors must be taken into account.
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 | 0.000 | 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".