On the mismatch in the strength of competition among fossil and modern species of planktonic Foraminifera
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim Many clades display the macroevolutionary pattern of a negative relationship between standing diversity and diversification rates. Competition among species has been proposed as the main mechanism that explains this pattern. However, we currently lack empirical insight into how the effects of individual‐level ecological interactions scale up to affect species diversification. Here, we investigate a clade that shows evidence for negative diversity‐dependent diversification in the fossil record and test whether the clade's modern communities show a corresponding signal of interspecific competition. Location World's oceans. Time period Holocene. Major taxa studied Planktonic Foraminifera (Rhizaria). Methods We explore spatial and temporal ecological patterns expected under interspecific competition. Firstly, we use a community phylogenetics approach to test for signs of local competitive exclusion among ecologically similar species (defined as closely related or of similar shell sizes) by combining species relative abundances in seafloor sediments. Secondly, we analyse whether population abundances of co‐occurring species covary negatively through time using sediment trap time‐series spanning 1–12 years. Results The great majority of the assemblages are indistinguishable from randomly assembled communities, showing no significant spatial co‐occurrence patterns regarding phylogeny or size similarity. Through time, most species pairs correlated positively, indicating synchronous rather than compensatory population dynamics. Main conclusions We found no detectable evidence for interspecific competition structuring extant planktonic Foraminifera communities. Species co‐occurrences and population dynamics are likely regulated by the abiotic environment and/or distantly related species, rather than intra‐clade density‐dependent processes. This interpretation contradicts the idea that competition drives the clade's macroevolutionary dynamics. One way to better integrate community ecology and macroevolution is to consider that diversification dynamics are influenced by groups that interact ecologically even when distantly related.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".