Immigration, Local Dispersal Limitation, and the Repeatability of Community Composition under Neutral and Niche Dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Repeatability of community composition has been a critical aspect for community structure, which is closely associated with community stability, predictability, conservation biology and ecological restoration. It has been shown that both immigration and local dispersal limitation can affect the community composition in both neutral and niche model. Hence, we use a spatially explicit individual-based model to investigate the potential influence of immigration rate and strength of local dispersal limitation on repeatability in both neutral and niche models. Similarity measures are used to quantify repeatability. We examine the repeatability of community composition among replicate communities (which means the same community repeats many times), and between niche and neutral replicate communities. We find the correlation between repeatability and immigration rate is positive in the neutral model and an inverted unimodal in the niche model. The correlation between repeatability and local dispersal distance is positive in the niche model and negative in the neutral model. High repeatability between niche communities and neutral communities is observed with high immigration rates or when high local dispersal distance appears in the niche model or low local dispersal distance in the neutral model. Our results show that repeatability of community composition is not only dependent on the types of community models (niche vs. neutrality) but also strongly determined by immigration rates and local dispersal limitation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".