The ‘filtering’ metaphor revisited: competition and environment jointly structure invasibility and coexistence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
'Filtering', or the reduction in species diversity that occurs because not all species can persist in all locations, is thought to unfold hierarchically, controlled by the environment at large scales and competition at small scales. However, the ecological effects of competition and the environment are not independent, and observational approaches preclude investigation into their interplay. We use a demographic approach with 30 plant species to experimentally test: (i) the effect of competition on species persistence in two soil moisture environments, and (ii) the effect of environmental conditions on mechanisms underlying competitive coexistence. We find that competitors cause differential species persistence across environments even when effects are lacking in the absence of competition, and that the traits which determine persistence depend on the competitive environment. If our study had been observational and trait-based, we would have erroneously concluded that the environment filters species with low biomass, shallow roots and small seeds. Changing environmental conditions generated idiosyncratic effects on coexistence outcomes, increasing competitive exclusion of some species while promoting coexistence of others. Our results highlight the importance of considering environmental filtering in the light of, rather than in isolation from, competition, and challenge community assembly models and approaches to projecting future species distributions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".