Scale‐dependent environmental effects on phenotypic distributions in<i>Heliconius</i>butterflies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Identifying the relative importance of different mechanisms responsible for the emergence and maintenance of phenotypic diversity can be challenging, as multiple selective pressures and stochastic events are involved in these processes. Therefore, testing how environmental conditions shape the distribution of phenotypes can offer important insights on local adaptation, divergence, and speciation. The red‐yellow Müllerian mimicry ring ofHeliconiusbutterflies exhibits a wide diversity of color patterns across the Neotropics and is involved in multiple hybrid zones, making it a powerful system to investigate environmental drivers of phenotypic distributions. Using the distantly relatedHeliconius eratoandHeliconius melpomeneco‐mimics and a multiscale distribution approach, we investigated whether distinct phenotypes of these species are associated with different environmental conditions. We show thatHeliconiusred‐yellow phenotypic distribution is strongly driven by environmental gradients (especially thermal and precipitation variables), but that phenotype and environment associations vary with spatial scale. While co‐mimics are usually predicted to occur in similar environments at large spatial scales, patterns at local scales are not always consistent (i.e., different variables are best predictors of phenotypic occurrence in different locations) or congruent (i.e., co‐mimics show distinct associations with environment). We suggest that large‐scale analyses are important for identifying how environmental factors shape broad mimetic phenotypic distributions, but that local studies are essential to understand the context‐dependent biotic, abiotic, and historical mechanisms driving finer‐scale phenotypic transitions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".