Ecological mechanisms and phylogeny shape invertebrate stoichiometry: A test using detritus‐based communities across Central and South America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Stoichiometric differences among organisms can affect trophic interactions and rates of nutrient cycling within ecosystems. However, we still know little about either the underlying causes of these stoichiometric differences or the consistency of these differences across large geographical extents. Here, we analyse elemental (carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus) composition of 872 aquatic macroinvertebrates (71 species) inhabiting tank bromeliads ( n = 140) from five distantly located sites across Central and South America to (i) test phylogenetic, trophic and body size scaling explanations for why organisms differ in elemental composition and (ii) determine whether patterns in elemental composition are universal or context dependent. Taxonomy explained most variance in elemental composition, even though phylogenetic signals were weak and limited to regional spatial extents and to the family level. The highest elemental contents and lowest carbon:nutrient ratios were found in organisms at high trophic levels and with smaller body size, regardless of geographical location. Carnivores may have higher nutrient content and lower carbon:nutrient ratios than their prey, as organisms optimize growth by choosing the most nutrient‐rich resources to consume and then preferentially retain nutrients over carbon in their bodies. Smaller organisms grow proportionally faster than large organisms and so are predicted to have higher nutrient requirements to fuel RNA and protein synthesis. Geography influenced the magnitude, more than the direction, of the ecological and/or phylogenetic effects on elemental composition. Overall, our results show that both ecological (i.e. trophic group) and evolutionary drivers explain among‐taxa variation in the elemental content of invertebrates, whereas intraspecific variation is mainly a function of body size. Our findings also demonstrate that restricting analyses of macroinvertebrate stoichiometry solely to either the local scale or species level affects inferences of the patterns in invertebrate elemental content and their underlying mechanisms. A plain language summary is available for this article.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".