Back

Coevolution of Species' Borders: Interactions Between Interspecific Competition, Gene Flow, and Matching Habitat Choice

Shirani, F.; Miller, J.; Freeman, B.

2026-05-06 ecology
10.64898/2026.05.03.722457 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Existing theory examining the coevolutionary dynamics of species range borders assumes random dispersal, which causes maladaptive gene flow from the range core to the range margins and contributes to the formation of range limits. However, dispersal is unlikely to be random for many organisms in nature, calling into question existing theoretical predictions. For example, if individuals exhibit phenotype-dependent adaptive dispersal strategies such as matching habitat choice, then the resulting adaptive gene flow toward species range margins could facilitate range expansions and potentially prevent the formation of range limits by interspecific competition. To test this idea, we use a comprehensive mathematical model to develop a quantitative theory of range border coevolution that incorporates phenotype-optimal dispersal--a particular form of matching habitat choice in which individuals follow the gradient in an environmental optimum phenotype to settle in the habit best suited for their phenotype. We find that instead of preventing competitively formed range limits, adaptive dispersal leads to sharper range limits and reduced character displacement in sympatry. These differences are particularly remarkable when natural selection is weak, when individuals are specialized in their resource use, or when individuals are highly sensitive to environmental conditions. We show that matching habitat choice causes backward edge-to-core movements which dynamically interact with the effects of interspecific competition to establish the range limits. Thus, the formation of range limits by interspecific competition is robust to assumptions about individual dispersal. Further, our results identify the competitive advantage of evolving matching habitat choice in steep environmental gradients, especially for slowly-growing species in rapidly fluctuating climates.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
The American Naturalist
114 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.9%
2
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
13.8%
3
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 3%
13.8%
4
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
10.0%
50% of probability mass above
5
Ecology Letters
121 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.7%
6
Evolution
199 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
3.5%
7
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 42%
3.5%
8
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
84 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.5%
9
Current Biology
596 papers in training set
Top 6%
3.5%
10
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
189 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.5%
11
Nature Ecology & Evolution
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.3%
12
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 15%
1.8%
13
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 39%
1.8%
14
Science
429 papers in training set
Top 15%
1.6%
15
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
53 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
16
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 59%
1.3%
17
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 67%
1.2%
18
Oikos
74 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.2%
19
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 19%
0.8%
20
Evolutionary Ecology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
21
Cell Systems
167 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.7%
22
Theoretical Ecology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.7%
23
Science Advances
1098 papers in training set
Top 32%
0.7%
24
Mathematical Biosciences
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%