The impact of non‐reproductive plant species on assessments of community structure and species co‐occurrence patterns
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Aims Studies of community structure and co‐occurrence patterns rely on the premise that community data reflect where species successfully grow and which species they grow with. However, plant censuses generally do not distinguish between species with reproductive individuals and those only represented by non‐reproductive individuals. We tested whether inclusion of non‐reproductive species, which may not reflect success in that location, significantly impacts evaluations of community structure and co‐occurrence. Location Queen's University Biological Station, Ontario, Canada, old‐field plant communities. Methods We quantified the impact of non‐reproductive species in two plant communities by comparing community structure and co‐occurrence patterns when non‐reproductive species were included or excluded. Results Including non‐reproductive species significantly increased plot‐level species richness in both communities (54% and 13% increases), altered species evenness in both communities, significantly impacted beta‐diversity among plots in one site, and disproportionately impacted assessments of diversity in species‐rich plots. Excluding non‐reproductive species resulted in reduced negative co‐occurrence patterns in both communities, with a substantially larger impact in one community. In that community, the impact of non‐reproductive species was even more pronounced when abundance data were used in analysis, and when pair‐wise co‐occurrence patterns were assessed. Additionally, including non‐reproductive species drastically decreased the number of species pairs with perfect negative co‐occurrence across sites, indicating that these species can add ‘noise’ to co‐occurrence patterns. We examined possible explanations for the presence of non‐reproductive species. In one community, non‐reproductive species were 22 times less abundant (per plot) than reproductive species within plots, although they were not rare overall. Differences in the number of non‐reproductive species per plot across our focal communities were not clearly driven by differences in clonality, stress from extreme weather or low N. While these patterns are consistent with the interpretation that non‐reproductive species are present due to mass effects, this possibility requires further research. Conclusions Including non‐reproductive plant species in censuses can significantly impact assessments of community structure and species co‐occurrence. The divergent impact of their inclusion on our two communities highlights the possibility that excluding non‐reproductive species from surveys may remove noise from community data and clarify theories of plant species co‐existence.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».