MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404063724 · doi:10.1098/rspb.2024.1318

Microbiome transfer from native to invasive species may increase invasion risk

2024· article· en· W4404063724 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Maria M. Martignoni, Oren Kolodny

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUnited States-Israel Binational Science FoundationAzrieli FoundationIsrael Science FoundationGordon and Betty Moore Foundation
KeywordsMicrobiomeBiologyAdaptation (eye)OrganismLocal adaptationEcologyIntroduced speciesInvasive speciesHost (biology)Evolutionary biologyGeneticsNeurosciencePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a fast-changing world, understanding how organisms adapt to their environment is a pressing necessity. Research has focused on genetic adaptation, while our understanding of non-genetic modes is still in its infancy. The host-associated microbiome can be considered a non-genetic mode of adaptation, which can strongly influence an organism's ability to cope with its environment. However, the role of the microbiome in host ecological dynamics is largely unexplored, particularly in animal communities. Here, we discuss the following hypothesis: invasive species may rapidly adapt to local conditions by adopting beneficial microbes from similar co-occurring native species. This occurs when the invader's fitness is influenced by adaptation to local conditions that is facilitated by microbes acquired from native microbiomes. We present a minimal mathematical model to explore this hypothesis and show that a delayed acquisition of native microbes may explain the occurrence of an invasion lag. Overall, our results contribute to broadening the conceptualization of rapid adaptation via microbiome transfer and offer insights towards designing early intervention strategies for invasive species management.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.229
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.238 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological SciencesSame topicEvolutionary Game Theory and CooperationFrench-language works237,207