An integrative framework of coexistence mechanisms in competitive metacommunities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Species distribution in a metacommunity varies according to their traits, the distribution of environmental conditions and connectivity among localities. These ingredients contribute to coexistence across spatial scales via species sorting, patch dynamics, mass effects and neutral dynamics. These mechanisms however seldom act in isolation and the impact of landscape configuration on their relative importance remains poorly understood. We present a new model of metacommunity dynamics that simultaneously considers these four possible mechanisms over spatially explicit landscapes and propose a statistical approach to partition their contribution to species distribution. We find that landscape configuration can induce dispersal limitations that have negative consequences for local species richness. This result was more pronounced with neutral dynamics and mass effect than with species sorting or patch dynamics. We also find that the relative importance of the four mechanisms varies not only among landscape configurations, but also among species, with some species being mostly constrained by dispersal and/or drift and others by sorting. Changes in landscape properties might lead to a shift in coexistence mechanisms and, by extension, to a change in community composition. This confirms the importance of considering landscape properties for conservation and management. Our results illustrate the idea that ecological communities are the results of multiple mechanisms acting at the same time and complete our understanding of spatial processes in competitive metacommunities.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".