Separating the Effects of Environment and Space on Tree Species Distribution: From Population to Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantifying the relative contributions of environmental conditions and spatial factors to species distribution can help improve our understanding of the processes that drive diversity patterns. In this study, based on tree inventory, topography and soil data from a 20-ha stem-mapped permanent forest plot in Guangdong Province, China, we evaluated the influence of different ecological processes at different spatial scales using canonical redundancy analysis (RDA) at the community level and multiple linear regression at the species level. At the community level, the proportion of explained variation in species distribution increased with grid-cell sizes, primarily due to a monotonic increase in the explanatory power of environmental variables. At the species level, neither environmental nor spatial factors were important determinants of overstory species' distributions at small cell sizes. However, purely spatial variables explained most of the variation in the distributions of understory species at fine and intermediate cell sizes. Midstory species showed patterns that were intermediate between those of overstory and understory species. At the 20-m cell size, the influence of spatial factors was stronger for more dispersal-limited species, suggesting that much of the spatial structuring in this community can be explained by dispersal limitation. Comparing environmental factors, soil variables had higher explanatory power than did topography for species distribution. However, both topographic and edaphic variables were highly spatial structured. Our results suggested that dispersal limitation has an important influence on fine-intermediate scale (from several to tens of meters) species distribution, while environmental variability facilitates species distribution at intermediate (from ten to tens of meters) and broad (from tens to hundreds of meters) 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".