An improved null model for assessing the net effects of multiple stressors on communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ecological stressors (i.e., environmental factors outside their normal range of variation) can mediate each other through their interactions, leading to unexpected combined effects on communities. Determining whether the net effect of stressors is ecologically surprising requires comparing their cumulative impact to a null model that represents the linear combination of their individual effects (i.e., an additive expectation). However, we show that standard additive and multiplicative null models that base their predictions on the effects of single stressors on community properties (e.g., species richness or biomass) do not provide this linear expectation, leading to incorrect interpretations of antagonistic and synergistic responses by communities. We present an alternative, the compositional null model, which instead bases its predictions on the effects of stressors on individual species, and then aggregates them to the community level. Simulations demonstrate the improved ability of the compositional null model to accurately provide a linear expectation of the net effect of stressors. We simulate the response of communities to paired stressors that affect species in a purely additive fashion and compare the relative abilities of the compositional null model and two standard community property null models (additive and multiplicative) to predict these linear changes in species richness and community biomass across different combinations (both positive, negative, or opposite) and intensities of stressors. The compositional model predicts the linear effects of multiple stressors under almost all scenarios, allowing for proper classification of net effects, whereas the standard null models do not. Our findings suggest that current estimates of the prevalence of ecological surprises on communities based on community property null models are unreliable, and should be improved by integrating the responses of individual species to the community level as does our compositional null model.
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 | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".