The more‐individuals hypothesis revisited: the role of community abundance in species richness regulation and the productivity–diversity relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Species richness increases with energy availability, yet there is little consensus as to the exact processes driving this species-energy relationship. The most straightforward explanation is the more-individuals hypothesis (MIH). It states that higher energy availability promotes a higher total number of individuals in a community, which consequently increases species richness by allowing for a greater number of species with viable populations. Empirical support for the MIH is mixed, partially due to the lack of proper formalisation of the MIH and consequent confusion as to its exact predictions. Here, we review the evidence of the MIH and evaluate the reliability of various predictions that have been tested. There is only limited evidence that spatial variation in species richness is driven by variation in the total number of individuals. There are also problems with measures of energy availability, with scale-dependence, and with the direction of causality, as the total number of individuals may sometimes itself be driven by the number of species. However, even in such a case the total number of individuals may be involved in diversity regulation. We propose a formal theory that encompasses these processes, clarifying how the different factors affecting diversity dynamics can be disentangled.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".