Quantifying spatial phylogenetic structures of fully stem‐mapped plant communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Analysis of the phylogenetic similarity of co‐occurring species at different spatial scales is increasingly used for decoding community assembly rules. Here, we integrated the analysis of phylobetadiversity and marked point pattern analysis to yield a new metric, the phylogenetic mark correlation function, k d ( r ), to quantify spatial phylogenetic structure of fully stem‐mapped communities. k d ( r ) is defined as the expected phylogenetic distance of two heterospecifics separated by spatial distance r , and normalized with the expected phylogenetic distance of two heterospecifics taken randomly from a study area. It measures spatial phylogenetic turnover relative to spatial species turnover and is closely related with the spatially explicit Simpson index. We used simulated fully stem‐mapped plant communities with known spatial phylogenetic structures to assess type I and II errors of the phylogenetic mark correlation function k d ( r ) under a null model of random phylogenetic spatial structure, and to test the ability of the k d ( r ) to detect scale‐dependent signals of phylogenetic spatial structure. We also compared the performance of the k d ( r ) with two existing measures of phylobetadiversity that have been previously used to analyse fully stem‐mapped plots. Finally, we explored the spatial phylogenetic structure of a 24‐ha fully stem‐mapped subtropical forest in China. Simulation tests showed that the new metric yielded correct type I and type II errors and accurately detected the spatial scales at which various processes (e.g. habitat filtering and competition) were invoked to generate spatial phylogenetic structures. The power of the k d ( r ) was not affected by a phylogenetic signal in species abundance and different topologies of the phylogenetic tree. Replacing phylogenetic distance by functional distance allows for application of the k d ( r ) to estimate spatial correlations in functional community structure. Thus, the k d ( r ) allows trait and phylogenetic structure to be analysed in the same framework. The phylogenetic mark correlation function is a powerful and accurate tool for revealing scale‐dependent phylogenetic/functional footprints in community assemblages and allows ecologists to keep up with the increasingly available data of fully stem‐mapped plots, functional traits and community phylogenies.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".