Quantifying relationships between traits and explicitly measured gradients of stress and disturbance in early successional plant communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Questions: How can one explicitly quantify, and separately measure, stress and disturbance gradients? How do these gradients affect functional composition in early successional plant communities and to what extent? Can we accurately predict trait composition from knowledge of these gradients? Location: Southern Quebec, Canada. Methods: Using eight environmental variables measured in 48 early successional plant communities, we estimated stress and disturbance gradients through structural equation modelling. We then measured 10 functional traits on the most abundant species of these 48 communities and calculated their community-level mean and variance weighted by the relative abundance of each species. Finally, we related these community-weighted means and variances to the estimated stress and disturbance gradients using general linear models or generalized additive models. Results: We obtained a well-fitting measurement model of the stress and disturbance gradients existing in our sites. Of the 10 studied traits, only average plant reproductive height was strongly correlated with the stress (r2=0.464) and disturbance (r2=0.543) gradients. Leaf traits were not significantly related to either the stress or disturbance gradients. Conclusions: The well-fitting measurement model of the stress and disturbance gradients, combined with the generally weak trait–environment linkages, suggests that community assembly in these early successional plant communities is driven primarily by stochastic processes linked to the history of arrival of propagules and not to trait-based environmental filtering.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".