Interspecific competition slows range expansion and shapes range boundaries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Species expanding into new habitats as a result of climate change or human introductions will frequently encounter resident competitors. Theoretical models suggest that such interspecific competition can alter the speed of expansion and the shape of expanding range boundaries. However, competitive interactions are rarely considered when forecasting the success or speed of expansion, in part because there has been no direct experimental evidence that competition affects either expansion speed or boundary shape. Here we demonstrate that interspecific competition alters both expansion speed and range boundary shape. Using a two-species experimental system of the flour beetles Tribolium castaneum and Tribolium confusum, we show that interspecific competition dramatically slows expansion across a landscape over multiple generations. Using a parameterized stochastic model of expansion, we find that this slowdown can persist over the long-term. We also find that the shape of the moving range boundary changes continuously over many generations of expansion, first steepening and then becoming shallower, due to the competitive effect of the resident and density-dependent dispersal of the invader. This dynamic boundary shape suggests that current forecasting approaches assuming a constant shape could be misleading. More broadly, our results demonstrate that interactions between competing species can play a large role during range expansions and thus should be included in models and studies that monitor, forecast, or manage expansions in natural systems.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
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".