Scale, Environment, and Trophic Status: The Context Dependency of Community Saturation in Rocky Intertidal Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our understanding of the relative influence of different ecological drivers on the number of species in a place remains limited. Assessing the relative influence of local ecological interactions versus regional species pools on local species richness should help bridge this conceptual gap. Plots of local species richness versus regional species pools have been used to address this question, yet after an active quarter-century of research on the relative influence of local interactions versus regional species pools, consensus remains elusive. We propose a conceptual framework that incorporates spatial scale and ecological interaction strength to reconcile current disparities. We then test this framework using a survey of marine rocky intertidal algal and invertebrate communities from the northeast Pacific. We reach two main conclusions. First, these data show that the power of regional species pools to predict local richness disintegrates at small spatial scales coincident with the scale of biological interactions, when studying ecologically interactive groups of species, and in generally more abiotically stressful habitats (e.g., the high intertidal). Second, conclusions of past studies asserting that the regional species pool is the primary driver of local species richness may be artifacts of large spatial scales or ecologically noninteractive groups of species.
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) | 0.000 | 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".