Integrating phylogenetic community structure with species distribution models: an example with plants of rock barrens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Approaches using phylogenetic pattern in ecological communities to deduce processes of community assembly have been criticised as disconnected from foundations in ecological mechanism, especially with respect to lack of data about abiotic and biotic niches. These criticisms can be addressed with analyses of organismal traits that underlie environmental filtering, competitive exclusion, and other candidate processes; however, the difficulty of assembling large trait databases means that such studies remain uncommon. We suggest a synthesis of phylogenetic community structure analysis and species distribution modeling that we believe can allow inference about community processes without prohibitive data requirements. We illustrate this method for angiosperm communities of rock barrens in eastern Canada. First, we analyzed phylogenetic community structure of four rock‐barren sites at three nested spatial scales (quadrat to region). For the nine most common species in our barrens, we used regional occurrence records to build species distribution models identifying environmental drivers of the nine species’ distributions. Coefficients of these models represent implicit trait data that summarize each species’ response to the environmental drivers in the model. We then tested for phylogenetic signal in these traits, to ask whether ecological forces acting on them could be generating phylogenetic community structure. We found strong phylogenetic clustering at the quadrat level, while patterns at larger scales were complex. Our distribution model suggested drought stress as the dominant driver for distributions of all the species, consistent with local correlations with soil depth, and the species’ responses to drought showed strong phylogenetic signal. The convergence of results from phylogenetic community structure and species distribution modeling suggests that barren communities are structured at the quadrat level by environmental filtering effects of moisture stress, to which species have phylogenetically patterned responses.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".