Code and data for: The difficulty of predicting evolutionary change in response to novel ecological interactions: a field experiment with Anolis lizards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Determining whether and how evolution is predictable is an important goal, particularly as anthropogenic disturbances lead to novel species interactions that could modify selective pressures. Here, we use a multi-generation field experiment with brown anole lizards (Anolis sagrei) to test hypotheses about the predictability of evolution. We manipulated the presence and absence of predators and competitors across 16 islands in the Bahamas with preexisting brown anole populations. Before the experiment and again after roughly five generations, we measured traits related to locomotory performance and habitat use of brown anoles and used ddRAD sequencing to estimate genome-wide changes in allele frequencies. Although previous work showed that predators and competitors had consistent effects on brown anole behavior, diet, and population sizes, we found that evolutionary change at both phenotypic and genomic levels was difficult to forecast. Phenotypic changes were contingent on sex and habitat use, whereas genetic change was unpredictable and not measurably correlated with phenotypic changes, experimental treatments, or other environmental factors. Our work shows how differences in ecological context can alter evolutionary outcomes over short timescales and underscores the difficulty of forecasting evolutionary responses to multi-species interactions in natural conditions, even in a well-studied system with ample ecological information.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.067 | 0.056 |
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".