Trait dimensionality and population choice alter estimates of phenotypic dissimilarity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The ecological niche is a multi‐dimensional concept including aspects of resource use, environmental tolerance, and interspecific interactions, and the degree to which niches overlap is central to many ecological questions. Plant phenotypic traits are increasingly used as surrogates of species niches, but we lack an understanding of how key sampling decisions affect our ability to capture phenotypic differences among species. Using trait data of ecologically distinct monkeyflower (Mimulus) congeners, we employed linear discriminant analysis to determine how (1) dimensionality (the number and type of traits) and (2) variation within species influence how well measured traits reflect phenotypic differences among species. We conducted analyses using vegetative and floral traits in different combinations of up to 13 traits and compared the performance of commonly used functional traits such as specific leaf area against other morphological traits. We tested the importance of intraspecific variation by assessing how population choice changed our ability to discriminate species. Neither using key functional traits nor sampling across plant functions and organs maximized species discrimination. When using few traits, vegetative traits performed better than combinations of vegetative and floral traits or floral traits alone. Overall, including more traits increased our ability to detect phenotypic differences among species. Population choice and the number of traits used had comparable impacts on discriminating species. We addressed methodological challenges that have undermined cross‐study comparability of trait‐based approaches. Our results emphasize the importance of sampling among‐population trait variation and suggest that a high‐dimensional approach may best capture phenotypic variation among species with distinct niches.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".