Multi‐hierarchical macroecology at species and genetic levels to discern neutral and non‐neutral processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim Large‐scale DNA barcoding allows the simultaneous assessment of variation in community composition at species level and below. We here propose that the patterns emerging across multiple hierarchical levels can be used to discern the effects of neutral and non‐neutral macroecological processes, which otherwise have proven difficult to separate. Location Iberian Peninsula. Methods We performed cox1 barcoding on 20 complete assemblages of leaf beetles for 4533 individuals of 203 species. The neutrality of cox1 sequence evolution was tested using Tajima's test. Haplotypes (n = 2020) were grouped into nested n‐step networks of up to five intraspecific hierarchical levels. We then assessed whether the spatial variation in assemblage composition at all hierarchical levels from haplotype to species was self‐similar (fractal) and predictable from level to level. Results Tajima's test on a subset of widely sampled species (n = 136) was consistent with neutral evolution in 83% of the species, but only 3% of cases exhibited balancing selection. Multiple hierarchical levels representing haplotype genealogies of various ages showed a similar rate of distance decay of assemblage similarity. In addition, we found strong log‐log correlations between hierarchical level (lineage age) and number of lineages, lineage range size and assemblage similarity. Similarity at the species level was strongly correlated to similarity at the haplotype level for the whole assemblage (r2 = 0.75) or for within‐species haplotype similarity (mean r2 = 0.17, SE = 0.03). Main conclusions These findings suggest great regularities in the pattern of assemblage variation at all lineage ages that are best explained by the enduring action of stochastic (neutral) processes of mutation and dispersal. The multi‐hierarchical analysis therefore bridges predictions of the neutral theory of molecular evolution and the neutral theory of biodiversity. Neutral processes thus emerge as a unifying principle of ecology and evolution, which has deep implications in biodiversity assessment and conservation.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".