A critical analysis of the ubiquity of linear local–regional richness relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Synthesis Despite theoretical criticisms, the ubiquity of linear relationships between local and regional species richness has long been used to justify it as a valid framework to conclude that local communities are not saturated with species. However, we reanalyzed published studies with a new unbiased method and found no prevalence of linear relationships and more than 40% of misclassifications, including textbook examples. We thus conclude that the prevailing argument in favor of associating a valid ecological interpretation to local–regional species richness plots, its ubiquity, is not sustained, and that ecologists could use for instance metacommunity theory to make inference on the strength of local and regional processes. Identifying the relative importance of regional and local processes to local species diversity is a central issue to many questions in basic and applied ecology. One widely‐used method is to plot local species richness against its regional richness to infer whether regional or local processes determine local diversity. However, this method increases the tendency to find regional prevalence as suggested by a recent simulation. We reanalyzed studies in the literature with an unbiased method and found no prevalence of either regional or local processes. In addition, almost 40% of the studies and 50% of the ecology textbook examples using the traditional method were misclassified. Our findings reinforce the need of alternative, novel tools identified by for instance metacommunity theory to go beyond the studies of local–regional relationships in the ecological literature that focus on the interdependence of regional and local processes.
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 | 0.159 | 0.558 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".