MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313880232 · doi:10.1093/evolut/qpac040

On the predictability of phenotypic divergence in geographic isolation

2022· article· en· W4313880232 on OpenAlexaff
Benjamin G. Freeman, Graham A. Montgomery, Julian Heavyside, Andre E. Moncrieff, Oscar W. Johnson, Benjamin M. Winger

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiologyBiological dispersalEcologyTraitDivergence (linguistics)Genetic divergenceEvolutionary biologyGenetic diversity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Do related populations that are separated by barriers predictably evolve differences from one another over time, or is such divergence idiosyncratic and unpredictable? We test these alternatives by investigating patterns of trait evolution for 54 sister pairs of Andean forest birds that live in similar environments on either side of the arid Marañón Gap, a strong dispersal barrier for humid montane species. We measured divergence in both sexual (song and plumage) and ecological (beak size and beak shape) traits. Sexual traits evolve in a clock-like fashion, with trait divergence positively correlated with genetic distance (r = 0.6-0.7). In contrast, divergence in ecological traits is uncorrelated or only loosely correlated with genetic distance (r = 0.0-0.3). Thus, for geographically isolated Andean montane forest birds that live in similar environments, divergence is predictable in sexual traits, but not for ecological traits. This means that sexual trait divergence occurs independently of adaptive ecological divergence within the mega-diverse tropical Andean avifauna. Last, we show that variation in genetic divergence across a biogeographic barrier is associated with traits that are proxies for species' opportunities for dispersal (low elevation limit and elevational niche breadth), but not with traits that are proxies for species' dispersal abilities (hand-wing index and foraging strata).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.158 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207