Linking plant genes to arthropod community dynamics: current progress and future challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plant genetic variation can play a key role in shaping ecological communities. Prior work investigated the effects of coarse-grain variation among plant genotypes on their diverse arthropod communities. Several recent studies, however, have leveraged the boom of genomic resources to study how genome-wide plant variation influences associated communities. These studies have demonstrated that the effects of plant genomic variation are not just detectable but can be important drivers of arthropod communities in natural ecosystems. Field common gardens and lab-based mesocosm experiments are also revealing candidate genes that have large effects on arthropod communities. While we highlight these exciting results, we also discuss key challenges to address in future research. We argue that a major hurdle lies in the integration of genomic tools with hierarchical models of species communities (HMSCs). HMSCs are generative models that provide the opportunity to not only better understand the processes underlying community change but to also predict community dynamics. We also advocate for future research to apply models of genomic prediction to explore the genetic architecture of arthropod community phenotypes. We hypothesize that this genetic architecture will follow an exponential distribution, where a few genes of large effect, but also many genes of small effect, contribute to variation in arthropod communities. The next generation of studies linking plant genes to community dynamics will require interdisciplinary collaborations to build truly predictive models of plant genetic and arthropod community change.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".