The evolution of partner specificity in mutualisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mutualistic species vary in their level of partner specificity, which has important evolutionary, ecological, and management implications. Yet, the evolutionary mechanisms which underpin partner specificity are not fully understood. Most work on specialization focuses on the trade-off between generalism and specialism, where specialists receive more benefits from preferred partners at the expense of benefits from non-preferred partners, while generalists receive similar benefits from all partners. Because all mutualisms involve some degree of both cooperation and conflict between partners, we highlight that specialization to a mutualistic partner can be cooperative, increasing benefit to a focal species and a partner, or antagonistic, increasing resource extraction by a focal species from a partner. We devise an evolutionary game theoretic model to assess the evolutionary dynamics of cooperative specialization, antagonistic specialization, and generalism. Our model shows that cooperative specialization leads to bistability: stable equilibria with a specialist host and its preferred partner excluding all others. We also show that under cooperative specialization with spatial effects, generalists can thrive at the boundaries between differing specialist patches. Under antagonistic specialization, generalism is evolutionarily stable. We provide predictions for how a cooperation-antagonism continuum may determine the patterns of partner specificity that develop within mutualistic relationships.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".