To disperse or compete? Coevolution of traits leads to a limited number of reproductive strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reproductive strategies are defined by a combination of behavioural, morphological, and life‐history traits. Reproductive investment and offspring propagule size are two key traits defining reproductive strategies. While a substantial amount of work has been devoted to understanding the independent fitness effects of each of these traits, it remains unclear how coevolution between them ultimately affects the evolution of reproductive strategies, and how this might influence the relationship between dispersal and environmental factors. In this study we explore how the evolution of reproductive strategies defined by these two coevolving traits is influenced by resource availability and spatial structuring of the environment using a simulation model. We find three possible equilibrium strategies across all scenarios: a competitor strategy with high reproductive investment (producing large propagules which disperse short distances), and two coloniser strategies differing in reproductive investment (both producing small propagules which disperse long distances). The possible equilibrium strategies for each scenario depended on starting conditions, spatial structure and resource availability. Evolutionary transitions between these equilibrium strategies were more likely in heterogeneous than homogeneous landscapes and at higher resource levels. Transition from coloniser strategy to competitor strategy was usually a two‐step process, with changes in propagule size following initial evolution in investment. This highlights how the interaction between the two trait axes affects the evolution of reproductive strategies, particularly where fitness valleys preclude the simultaneous evolution of traits. Our results highlight the need to incorporate trait coevolution into evolutionary models to help develop a more integrative understanding of the structure of natural populations and how the interaction between traits constrains or hinders evolutionary processes.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".