Data from: Closely related species of birds differ more in body size when their ranges overlap—in warm, but not cool, climates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Differences in body size are widely thought to allow closely related species to coexist in sympatry, but body size also varies as an adaptive response to climate. Here, we use a sister lineage approach to test the prediction that body size differences between closely related species of birds worldwide are greater for species whose ranges are sympatric rather than allopatric. We further test if body size differences among sympatric versus allopatric species vary with geography, evolutionary distance, and environmental temperatures. We find greater differences in size among sympatric compared with allopatric lineages, but only in closely related species that live where mean annual temperatures are above 25°C. These size differences in warm environments declined with the evolutionary distance between sister lineages. In species living in cooler regions, closely related allopatric and sympatric species did not differ significantly in size, suggesting either that colder temperatures constrain the evolutionary divergence of size in sympatry, or that the biotic selective pressures favoring size differences in sympatry are weaker in colder environments. Our results are consistent with suggestions by Wallace, Darwin, and Dobzhansky that climatic selective pressures are more important in cooler environments (e.g., high elevations and latitudes) while biotic selective pressures dominate in warm environments (e.g., lowland tropics).
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.057 | 0.040 |
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".