Adaptation across geographic ranges is consistent with strong selection in marginal climates and legacies of range expansion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Every species experiences limits to its geographic distribution. Some evolutionary models predict that populations at range edges are less well-adapted to their local environments due to drift, expansion load, or swamping gene flow from the range interior. Alternatively, populations near range edges might be uniquely adapted to marginal environments. In this study, we use a database of transplant studies that quantify performance at broad geographic scales to test how local adaptation, site quality, and population quality change from spatial and climatic range centers towards edges. We find that populations from poleward edges perform relatively poorly, both on average across all sites (15% lower population quality) and when compared to other populations at home (31% relative fitness disadvantage), consistent with these populations harboring high genetic load. Populations from equatorial edges also perform poorly on average (18% lower population quality) but, in contrast, outperform foreign populations (16% relative fitness advantage), suggesting that populations from equatorial edges have strongly adapted to unique environments. Finally, we find that populations from sites that are thermally extreme relative to the species’ niche demonstrate strong local adaptation, regardless of their geographic position. Our findings indicate that both nonadaptive processes and adaptive evolution contribute to variation in adaptation across species’ ranges.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".