The latitudinal diversity gradient and interspecific competition: no global relationship between lizard dietary niche breadth and species richness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim Dietary niche breadth has long been hypothesized to decrease towards lower latitudes as the numbers of competitors increase. Geographical variation in niche breadth is also hypothesized to be linked to high ambient energy levels, water availability, productivity and climate stability – reflecting an increased number of available prey taxa. Range size and body size are also hypothesized to be strongly and positively associated with niche breadth. We sought to determine which of these factors is associated with geographical variation in niche breadth across broad spatial scales and thus potentially drive the latitudinal diversity gradient. Location Global. Methods We collated volumetric dietary data for 308 lizard species. For each species, we gathered data on number of sympatric lizard species (a proxy for the number of competitors), annual temperature and precipitation, net primary productivity, seasonality, range size and body size. We examined the relationship between dietary niche breadth and focal parameters using both ordinary and phylogenetic generalized least squares regressions. Results Niche breadth was positively related to annual precipitation, temperature seasonality and range size, and negatively related to body size. Lizard species richness increased towards lower latitudes. Dietary niche breadth, however, was unrelated to parameters reflecting diversity gradients, such as primary productivity, annual temperature, precipitation seasonality and, crucially, the number of potential competitors. Main conclusions Contrary to prevailing ecological theory, competition is unrelated to dietary niche breadth. We found no support for interspecific competition driving the latitudinal diversity gradient. Rather, we found variation in niche breadth to be associated with water availability, climate stability, range size and body size. Our study casts doubt on the common assumption that tropical species are specialists, promoting greater alpha diversity, and on the assumption that the number of sympatric species is reflected in the intensity of interspecific competition.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".