The role of environmental and spatial processes in structuring native and non‐native fish communities across thousands of lakes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantifying the role of spatial patterns is an important goal in ecology to further understand patterns of community composition. We quantified the relative role of environmental conditions and regional spatial patterns that could be produced by environmental filtering and dispersal limitation on fish community composition for thousands of lakes. A database was assembled on fish community composition, lake morphology, water quality, climatic conditions, and hydrological connectivity for 9885 lakes in Ontario, Canada. We utilized a variation partitioning approach in conjunction with Moran's Eigenvector Maps (MEM) and Asymmetric Eigenvector Maps (AEM) to model spatial patterns that could be produced by human‐mediated and natural modes of dispersal. Across 9885 lakes and 100 fish species, environmental factors and spatial structure explained approximately 19% of the variation in fish community composition. Examining the proportional role of spatial structure and environmental conditions revealed that as much as 90% of the explained variation in native species assemblage composition is governed by environmental conditions. Conversely on average, 67% of the explained variation in non‐native assemblage composition can be related to human‐mediated dispersal. This study highlights the importance of including spatial structure and environmental conditions when explaining patterns of community composition to better discriminate between the ecological processes that underlie biogeographical patterns of communities composed of native and non‐native fish 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 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".