Integrating trait and phylogenetic distances to assess scale‐dependent community assembly processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biodiversity is structured by multiple mechanisms that are dependent, at least in part, on ecological similarities and differences among species. Integrating traits and phylogenies in diversity metrics may provide deeper insight into community assembly processes across spatial scales. However, different traits are influenced by processes at different spatial scales, and it is not clear how trait‐spatial scale mismatches skew our ability to detect assembly patterns. An additional complexity is how phylogenetic distances, which might capture unmeasured traits, reflect spatially dependent processes. Here we analyze a freshwater zooplankton dataset from 91 ponds and show that different traits are associated with processes at different spatial scales. We first assessed the response of individual traits to processes at both α‐ and β‐scales, and then quantified the power of different combinations of traits and phylogenetic distances to reveal environmental and spatial drivers of α‐ and β‐diversity. We found that explanatory power was maximised when we accounted for environmental and spatial drivers with single, but different traits for α‐ and β‐diversity. Using the most appropriate trait for each spatial scale outperformed phylogenetic information, but phylogenetic information outperformed the same traits when these were used at the wrong spatial scale, and all outperformed taxonomic analyses that ignore trait and phylogenetic information. We demonstrate that accounting for species’ similarities and differences provides important information about dominant assembly mechanisms at different spatial scales, and that phylogeny is especially useful when measured traits are uninformative at a given spatial scale or when there is lack of trait data. Our study also indicates, however, that trait‐scale mismatches among phylogenetically conserved traits may affect the performance of phylogenetic indices compared to indices that account only for the best single trait at each spatial scale.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".