Latitudinal gradient of nestedness and its potential drivers in stream detritivores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding what mechanisms shape the diversity and composition of biological assemblages across broad‐scale gradients is central to ecology. Litter‐consuming detritivorous invertebrates in streams show an unusual diversity gradient, with α‐diversity increasing towards high latitudes but no trend in γ‐diversity. We hypothesized this pattern to be related to shifts in nestedness and several ecological processes shaping their assemblages (dispersal, environmental filtering and competition). We tested this hypothesis, using a global dataset, by examining latitudinal trends in nestedness and several indicators of the above processes along the latitudinal gradient. Our results suggest that strong environmental filtering and low dispersal in the tropics lead to often species‐poor local detritivore assemblages, nested in richer regional assemblages. At higher latitudes, dispersal becomes stronger, disrupting the nested assemblage structure and resulting in local assemblages that are generally more species‐rich and non‐nested subsets of the regional species pools. Our results provide evidence that mechanisms underlying assemblage composition and diversity of stream litter‐consuming detritivores shift across latitudes, and provide an explanation for their unusual pattern of increasing α‐diversity with latitude. When we repeated these analyses for whole invertebrate assemblages of leaf litter and for abundant taxa showing reverse or no diversity gradients we found no latitudinal patterns, suggesting that function‐based rather than taxon‐based analyses of assemblages may help elucidate the mechanisms behind diversity gradients.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".