Mutualism at the leading edge: Insights into the eco-evolutionary dynamics of host-symbiont communities during range expansion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The evolution of mutualism between host and symbiont communities plays an essential role in maintaining ecosystem function and should therefore have a pro-found effect on their range expansion dynamics. In particular, the presence of mutualistic symbionts at the leading edge of a host-symbiont community should enhance its propagation in space. We develop a theoretical framework that captures the eco-evolutionary dynamics of host-symbiont communities, to investigate how the evolution of resource exchange may shape community structure during range expansion. We consider a community with symbionts that are mutualistic or parasitic to various degrees, where parasitic symbionts receive the same amount of resource from the host as mutualistic symbionts, but at lower cost. The selective advantage of parasitic symbionts over mutualistic ones is strengthened with resource availability (i.e. with host density), promoting mutualism at the range edges, where host density is low, and parasitism in the population core, where host density is higher. This spatial selection also influences the speed of spread. We find that the host growth rate (which depends on the average benefit provided by the symbionts) is maximal at the range edges, where symbionts are more mutualistic, and that host-symbiont communities with high symbiont density at their core (e.g. resulting from more mutualistic hosts) spread faster into new territories. These results indicate that the expansion of host-symbiont communities is pulled by the hosts but pushed by the symbionts, in a unique push-pull dynamic where both the host and symbionts are active and tightly-linked players.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".