Life in fluctuating environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Variability in the environment defines the structure and dynamics of all living systems, from organisms to ecosystems. Species have evolved traits and strategies that allow them to detect, exploit and predict the changing environment. These traits allow organisms to maintain steady internal conditions required for physiological functioning through feedback mechanisms that allow internal conditions to remain at or near a set-point despite a fluctuating environment. In addition to feedback, many organisms have evolved feedforward processes, which allow them to adjust in anticipation of an expected future state of the environment. Here we provide a framework describing how feedback and feedforward mechanisms operating within organisms can generate effects across scales of organization, and how they allow living systems to persist in fluctuating environments. Daily, seasonal and multi-year cycles provide cues that organisms use to anticipate changes in physiologically relevant environmental conditions. Using feedforward mechanisms, organisms can exploit correlations in environmental variables to prepare for anticipated future changes. Strategies to obtain, store and act on information about the conditional nature of future events are advantageous and are evidenced in widespread phenotypes such as circadian clocks, social behaviour, diapause and migrations. Humans are altering the ways in which the environment fluctuates, causing correlations between environmental variables to become decoupled, decreasing the reliability of cues. Human-induced environmental change is also altering sensory environments and the ability of organisms to detect cues. Recognizing that living systems combine feedback and feedforward processes is essential to understanding their responses to current and future regimes of environmental fluctuations. This article is part of the theme issue 'Integrative research perspectives on marine conservation'.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".