Experimental studies on the fate of diversity in heterogeneous environments
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Environmental heterogeneity has often been suggested as a general explanation for patterns of diversity at scales ranging from individuals within populations to communities within landscapes. I evaluate this proposition using laboratory experiments with two microbial species, the unicellular chlorophyte Chlamydomonas reinhardtii and the common bacterium Pseudomonas fluorescens. These experiments contrast the fate of diversity following selection in heterogeneous and homogeneous environments. Specifically, I show that (1) an individual's breadth of adaptation evolves to match the amount of environmental variation, specialists evolving in environments that remain constant through time and generalists evolving in environments that vary through time irrespective of the scale at which environmental variation occurs relative to the lifetime of an individual; (2) the maintenance of diversity in a spatially heterogeneous environment is context-dependent, diversity being more readily maintained when environmental conditions are very different and genotypes are widely divergent; (3) selection in heterogeneous environments represents a plausible mechanism for two well-known patterns of diversity at large spatial scales, namely that between species diversity and both productivity and disturbance. This thesis thus demonstrates that environmental heterogeneity is a plausible, and perhaps very general, factor responsible for the diversity of natural communities.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it