MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2592551887 · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.12767

The statistical need to include phylogeny in trait‐based analyses of community composition

2017· article· en· W2592551887 on OpenAlex
Daijiang Li, Anthony R. Ives

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in Ecology and Evolution · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicEvolution and Paleontology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Environmental BiologyMcGill University
KeywordsPhylogenetic treeTraitBiologyType I and type II errorsResidualPhylogeneticsPhylogenetic comparative methodsStatisticsStatistical powerEvolutionary biologyRange (aeronautics)EcologyMathematicsGeneticsAlgorithmComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary A growing number of studies incorporate functional trait information to analyse patterns and processes of community assembly. These studies of trait–environment relationships generally ignore phylogenetic relationships among species. When functional traits and the residual variation in species distributions among communities have phylogenetic signal, however, analyses ignoring phylogenetic relationships can decrease estimation accuracy and power, inflate type I error rates and lead to potentially false conclusions. Using simulations, we compared estimation accuracy, statistical power and type I error rates of linear mixed models (LMM) and phylogenetic linear mixed models (PLMM) designed to test for trait–environment interactions in the distribution of species abundances among sites. We considered the consequences of both phylogenetic signal in traits and phylogenetic signal in the residual variation in species distributions generated by an unmeasured (latent) trait with phylogenetic signal. When there was phylogenetic signal in the residual variation in species among sites, PLMM provided better estimates (closer to the true value) and greater statistical power for testing whether the trait–environment interaction regression coefficient differed from zero. LMM had unacceptably high type I error rates when there was phylogenetic signal in both traits and the residual variation in species distributions. When there was no phylogenetic signal in the residual variation in species distributions, LMM and PLMM had similar performances. Linear mixed models that ignore phylogenetic relationships can lead to poor statistical tests of trait–environment relationships when there is phylogenetic signal in the residual variation in species distributions among sites, such as caused by unmeasured traits. Therefore, phylogenies and PLMMs should be used when studying how functional traits affect species abundances among communities in response to environmental gradients.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.309
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.116
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it