Dominant Species and Diversity: Linking Relative Abundance to Controls of Species Establishment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ecological theories make divergent predictions about whether extant species inhibit or promote the establishment of new species and which aspects of community composition determine these interactions; diversity, individual dominant species, and neutral interactions have all been argued to be most important. We experimentally tested these predictions by removing plant biomass (0%, 7%, 100%) from boreal forest understory communities. The 7% removals were restricted to the numerically dominant species, the second most dominant species, or many low-abundance species, thereby separating the effects of species composition from those of biomass. We tested the effects of all removal treatments on seedling establishment. Competitive effects were driven by one dominant species and were inconsistent with resource complementarity, neutral, or competition-colonization models. Facilitative effects were apparent only following removal of all vegetation, of which the most dominant species comprised more than 80%. Our results indicate that numerically dominant species in a community can influence the establishment of new species more than species diversity, but the direction of interaction can shift from facilitative to competitive as community density increases.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".