On the prevalence and dynamics of inverted trophic pyramids and otherwise top‐heavy communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Classically, biomass partitioning across trophic levels was thought to add up to a pyramidal distribution. Numerous exceptions have, however, been noted including complete pyramidal inversions. Elevated levels of biomass top-heaviness (i.e. high consumer/resource biomass ratios) have been reported from Arctic tundra communities to Brazilian phytotelmata, and in species assemblages as diverse as those dominated by sharks and ants. We highlight two major pathways for creating top-heaviness, via: (1) endogenous channels that enhance energy transfer across trophic boundaries within a community and (2) exogenous pathways that transfer energy into communities from across spatial and temporal boundaries. Consumer-resource models and allometric trophic network models combined with niche models reveal the nature of core mechanisms for promoting top-heaviness. Outputs from these models suggest that top-heavy communities can be stable, but they also reveal sources of instability. Humans are both increasing and decreasing top-heaviness in nature with ecological consequences. Current and future research on the drivers of top-heaviness can help elucidate fundamental mechanisms that shape the architecture of ecological communities and govern energy flux within and between communities. Questions emerging from the study of top-heaviness also usefully draw attention to the incompleteness and inconsistency by which ecologists often establish definitional boundaries for communities.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".