A quantitative framework to estimate the relative importance of environment, spatial variation and patch connectivity in driving community composition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perhaps the most widely used quantitative approach in metacommunity ecology is the estimation of the importance of local environment vs. spatial structuring using the variation partitioning framework. Contrary to metapopulation models, however, current empirical studies of metacommunity structure using variation partitioning assume a space-for-dispersal substitution due to the lack of analytical frameworks that incorporate patch connectivity predictors of dispersal dynamics. Here, a method is presented that allows estimating the relative importance of environment, spatial variation and patch connectivity in driving community composition variation within metacommunities. The proposed approach is illustrated by a study designed to understand the factors driving the structure of a soft-bottom marine polychaete metacommunity. Using a standard variation partitioning scheme (i.e. where only environmental and spatial predictors are used), only about 13% of the variation in metacommunity structure was explained. With the connectivity set of predictors, the total amount of explained variation increased up to 51% of the variation. These results highlight the importance of considering predictors of patch connectivity rather than just spatial predictors. Given that information on connectivity can be estimated by commonly available data on species distributions for a number of taxa, the framework presented here can be readily applied to past studies as well, facilitating a more robust evaluation of the factors contributing to metacommunity structure.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".