The latitudinal gradient in rates of evolution for bird beaks, a species interaction trait
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Where is evolution fastest? The biotic interactions hypothesis proposes that greater species richness creates more ecological opportunity, driving faster evolution at low latitudes, whereas the 'empty niches' hypothesis proposes that ecological opportunity is greater where diversity is low, spurring faster evolution at high latitudes. We tested these contrasting predictions by analysing rates of beak evolution for a global dataset of 1141 avian sister species. Rates of beak size evolution are similar across latitudes, with some evidence that beak shape evolves faster in the temperate zone, consistent with the empty niches hypothesis. The empty niches hypothesis is further supported by a meta-analysis showing that rates of trait evolution and recent speciation are generally faster in the temperate zone, whereas rates of molecular evolution are slightly faster in the tropics. Our results suggest that drivers of evolutionary diversification are either similar across latitudes or more potent in the temperate zone, thus calling into question multiple hypotheses that invoke faster tropical evolution to explain the latitudinal diversity gradient.
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".