Interspecific competition reduces seed dispersal in an annual plant and slows simulated range expansions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the factors influencing how fast populations can spread across the landscape will be crucial as species ranges shift due to climate change. While the role of abiotic factors in determining expansion speed has been well studied in theory and empirical research, how competition impacts speed has received far less attention. Here, we investigated how seed dispersal distances change in response to competition and how these changes to distributions of dispersed seeds impact expansion speed. We dispersed four genotypes of the annual plant Arabidopsis thaliana with variation in life history traits into greenhouse mesocosms of either empty habitat or habitat containing the annual grass competitor, Lolium multiflorum. We found that competition decreased both mean and maximum dispersal distance. We then built a simulation model of range expansion with experimental data from this and a prior experiment to explore whether competition slows species expansions primarily through decreasing dispersal or fecundity. We found that competition primarily slows expansion speed through decreases in dispersal, but that when competition impacts both dispersal and fecundity, expansions slow more than with dispersal alone. The genotype with traits associated with longer distance dispersal was the most affected by competition in both experimental dispersal and simulations. This research suggests that not only does competition slow range expansions through decreases in both fecundity and dispersal, but that there may be consequences for evolutionary processes at the leading edge.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".