Habitat filtering and niche differentiation jointly explain species relative abundance within grassland communities along fertility and disturbance gradients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deterministic niche-based processes have been proposed to explain species relative abundance within communities but lead to different predictions: habitat filtering (HF) predicts dominant species to exhibit similar traits while niche differentiation (ND) requires that species have dissimilar traits to coexist. Using a multiple trait-based approach, we evaluated the relative roles of HF and ND in determining species abundances in productive grasslands. Four dimensions of the functional niche of 12 co-occurring grass species were identified using 28 plant functional traits. Using this description of the species niche, we investigated patterns of functional similarity and dissimilarity and linked them to abundance in randomly assembled six-species communities subjected to fertilization/disturbance treatments. Our results suggest that HF and ND jointly determined species abundance by acting on contrasting niche dimensions. The effect of HF decreased relative to ND with increasing disturbance and decreasing fertilization. Dominant species exhibited similar traits in communities whereas dissimilarity favored the coexistence of rare species with dominants by decreasing inter-specific competition. This stabilizing effect on diversity was suggested by a negative relationship between species over-yielding and relative abundance. We discuss the importance of considering independent dimensions of functional niche to better understand species abundance and coexistence within communities.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".