Range‐constrained co‐occurrence simulation reveals little niche partitioning among rock‐dwelling <i>Montenegrina</i> land snails (Gastropoda: Clausiliidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim Taxon co‐occurrence analysis is commonly used in ecology, but it has not been applied to range‐wide distribution data of partly allopatric taxa because existing methods cannot differentiate between distribution‐related effects and taxon interactions. Our first aim was to develop a taxon co‐occurrence analysis method that is also capable of taking into account the effect of species ranges and can handle faunistic records from museum databases or biodiversity inventories. Our second aim was to test the independence of taxon co‐occurrences of rock‐dwelling gastropods at different taxonomic levels, with a special focus on the Clausiliidae subfamily Alopiinae, and in particular the genus Montenegrina. Location Balkan Peninsula in south‐eastern Europe (46N–36N, 13.5E–28E). Methods We introduced a taxon‐specific metric that characterizes the occurrence probability at a given location. This probability was calculated as a distance‐weighted mean of the taxon's presence and absence records at all sites. We applied corrections to account for the biases introduced by varying sampling intensity in our dataset. Then we used probabilistic null‐models to simulate taxon distributions under the null hypothesis of no taxon interactions and calculated pairwise and cumulated co‐occurrences. Independence of taxon occurrences was tested by comparing observed co‐occurrences to simulated values. Results We observed significantly fewer co‐occurrences among species and intra‐generic lineages of Montenegrina than expected under the assumption of no taxon interaction. Main conclusions Fewer than expected co‐occurrences among species and intra‐generic clades indicate that species divergence preceded niche partitioning. This suggests a primary role of non‐adaptive processes in the speciation of rock‐dwelling gastropods. The method can account for the effects of distributional constraints in range‐wide datasets, making it suitable for testing ecological, biogeographical, or evolutionary hypotheses where interactions of partly allopatric taxa are in question.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".