Implications of spatial pattern and local density on community‐level interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The importance of spatial aggregation and density dependence have been extensively explored in ecology. However, both factors might interact or modify one another to differentially influence net population or community‐level dynamics. In a desert annual plant community, we experimentally tested for these effects at nested spatial scales by planting different number of patches within a plot but holding plot‐level seed density constant, by manipulating the number of occupied patches adjacent to a target patch, and by varying local seed density within patches. In doing so, we addressed the following specific questions: (i) is there an effect of the number of patches of seeds planted on plot‐level community measures, (ii) are there patch–patch interactions within plots, (iii) are there density‐dependent responses to changing initial seed density within patches, and (iv) do patterns observed at finer spatial scales predict patterns at larger scales? Community parameters measured at the plot level‐emergence, plant density, and mean plant size‐were negatively affected by increasing seed aggregation into fewer patches within a plot. However, converse effects were detected at finer spatial scales. The presence of neighbouring patches increased emergence within a plot, while increased seed density within patches decreased emergence but strongly increased survival and mean plant size. Hence, the net negative effects detected at the arbitrary plot level do not necessarily correspond to the interactions occurring at finer spatial scales within the plot. These findings suggest that the use of single scales of inquiry can potentially misrepresent the importance of a particular interaction, such as competition, and that the experimental consideration of finer scales within a community reveal different patterns and do not predict final net effects within a community.
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".