Broad‐scale environmental response and niche conservatism in lacustrine diatom communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Aim (1) To resolve theoretical debates regarding the role of environment versus dispersal limitation, the conservatism of niches across distances and the prevalence of environmental specialists in diatom communities. (2) To provide guidance on the use of diatom communities and other microbial analogues to analyse ecological response to environmental change. Location Eight hundred and ninety‐one lakes in five regional datasets from north‐western Europe and four regional datasets from north‐eastern North America. Methods Lacustrine diatom communities were analysed at three scales: inter‐continental, intra‐continental and regional. Nested partial redundancy analyses (RDAs) were used to determine spatial versus environmental components of community variation. Weighted‐averaging (WA) regression and calibration, as well as logistic and quadratic regressions, were used to detect niche conservatism and the prevalence of environmental specialists. Results Community patterns indicate that dispersal limitation acts predominantly at the inter‐continental scale, while at the regional (less than c . 1,000,000 km 2 ) scale, a single environmental variable (pH) explains more than five times the community variation as spatial (dispersal‐related) variables. In addition, pH niche components appear to be conserved at the inter‐continental scale, and environmental specialization does not impose relative rarity, as specialists apparently readily disperse to suitable environments. Main conclusions Analysis at multiple scales is clearly important in determining the influences of community variation. For diatom communities, dispersal limitation acts most strongly at the broadest scales, giving way to environment at the scales considered by most analyses. The availability of a wide variety of propagules with consistent niches across regions indicates that diatom communities reflect the succession of taxa according to local environmental conditions, rather than disequilibrium with the environment or adaptation of local populations. While multi‐scale analyses must be undertaken for other groups to resolve debates over community drivers and determine appropriate scales for prediction, for diatoms (and probably other microbial communities), responses to environmental change can be inferred using analogue datasets from large geographic areas.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".