A community of metacommunities: exploring patterns in species distributions across large geographical areas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ecological communities show extremely complex patterns of variation in space, and quantifying the relative importance of spatial and environmental factors underpinning patterns of species distributions is one of the main goals of community ecology. Although we have accumulated good knowledge about the processes driving species distributions within metacommunities, we have few insights about whether (and how) environmental and spatial features can actually generate consistent species distributional patterns across multiple metacommunities. In this paper we applied the elements of metacommunity structure (EMS) framework to identify and classify metacommunities according to multiple but discrete patterns of species distributions. Given that each pattern has unique underlying structuring mechanisms, exploring and comparing such patterns across multiple metacommunities spanning large geographical areas provides a way to test the existence of general principles underlying species distributions within metacommunities. In this study, we applied the EMS framework into a data set containing about 9000 lakes distributed across 85 fish metacommunities across Ontario, Canada, and estimated the relative importance of local and spatial factors in explaining their distributional patterns. Nested and Clementsian gradients were the patterns that fitted most metacommunities; nested metacommunities were distributed throughout the province, while Clementsian gradient metacommunities were concentrated in the southeastern region. Sixty-five percent of nested metacommunities were located in low-energy watersheds (i.e., colder climate and shorter growing season), whereas metacommunities representing Clementsian gradients were present in high-energy watersheds (i.e., relatively warmer climate and longer growing season). Taken together, our results reveal that the environmental and spatial properties in which metacommunities are embedded are at least partially responsible for their species distributional patterns.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".