Extending the stress‐gradient hypothesis – is competition among animals less common in harsh environments?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of positive interactions has become widely accepted as a mechanism shaping community dynamics. Most empirical evidence comes from plant communities and sessile marine organisms. However, evidence for the relative role of positive interactions in organizing terrestrial animal communities is more limited, and a general framework that includes positive interactions among animals is lacking. The ‘stress gradient hypothesis’ (SGH) developed by plant ecologists predicts that the balance between positive and negative interactions will vary along gradients of biotic and abiotic stress, with positive interactions being more important in stressful environments. Paralleling the SGH, stress gradients for terrestrial herbivores could be equated to inverse primary productivity gradients, so we would expect positive interactions to prevail in more stressful, low productivity environments. However, this contradicts the typical view of terrestrial animal ecology that low primary productivity systems will foster intense competition for resources among consumers. Here we use alpine herbivores as a case study to test one of the predictions of the SGH in animal communities, namely the prevalence of positive interactions in low productivity environments. We identify potential mechanisms of facilitation and review the limited number of examples of interspecific interactions among alpine herbivores to assess the role of positive and negative interactions in structuring their communities. A meta‐analysis showed no clear trend in the strength and direction of interactions among alpine herbivores. Although studies were biased towards reporting significant negative inter actions, we found no evidence of competition dominating in harsh environments. Thus, our results only partially support the SGH, but directly challenge the dominant view among animal ecologists. Clearly, a sound theoretical framework is needed to include competition, positive and neutral interactions as potential mechanisms determining the structure of animal communities under differing environmental conditions, and the stress‐gradient hypothesis can provide a solid starting point.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".