Phylogenetic patterns differ for native and exotic plant communities across a richness gradient in Northern California
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim Increasingly, ecologists are using evolutionary relationships to infer the mechanisms of community assembly. However, modern communities are being invaded by non‐indigenous species. Since natives have been associated with one another through evolutionary time, the forces promoting character and niche divergence should be high. On the other hand, exotics have evolved elsewhere, meaning that conserved traits may be more important in their new ranges. Thus, co‐occurrence over sufficient time‐scales for reciprocal evolution may alter how phylogenetic relationships influence assembly. Here, we examined the phylogenetic structure of native and exotic plant communities across a large‐scale gradient in species richness and asked whether local assemblages are composed of more or less closely related natives and exotics and whether phylogenetic turnover among plots and among sites across this gradient is driven by turnover in close or distant relatives differentially for natives and exotics. Location Central and northern California, USA. Methods We used data from 30 to 50 replicate plots at four sites and constructed a maximum likelihood molecular phylogeny using the genes:matK,rbcl,ITS1and5.8s. We compared community‐level measures of native and exotic phylogenetic diversity and among‐plot phylobetadiversity. Results There were few exotic clades, but they tended to be widespread. Exotic species were phylogenetically clustered within communities and showed low phylogenetic turnover among communities. In contrast, the more species‐rich native communities showed higher phylogenetic dispersion and turnover among sites. Main conclusions The assembly of native and exotic subcommunities appears to reflect the evolutionary histories of these species and suggests that shared traits drive exotic patterns while evolutionary differentiation drives native assembly. Current invasions appear to be causing phylogenetic homogenization at regional scales.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".