Dos and don'ts when inferring assembly rules from diversity patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim More than ever, ecologists seek to understand how species are distributed and have assembled into communities using the “filtering framework”. This framework is based on the hypothesis that local assemblages result from a series of abiotic and biotic filters applied to regional species pools and that these filters leave predictable signals in observed diversity patterns. In theory, statistical comparisons of expected and observed patterns enable data‐driven tests of assembly processes. However, so far this framework has fallen short in delivering generalizable conclusions, challenging whether (and how) diversity patterns can be used to characterize and understand underlying assembly processes better. Methods By synthesizing the previously raised critiques and suggested solutions in a comprehensive way, we identify 10 pitfalls that can lead to flawed interpretations of α‐diversity patterns, summarize solutions developed to circumvent these pitfalls and provide general guidelines. Results We find that most issues arise from an overly simplistic view of potential processes that influence diversity patterns, which is often motivated by practical constraints on study design, focal scale and methodology. We outline solutions for each pitfall, such as methods spanning over spatial, environmental or phylogenetic scales, and suggest guidelines for best scientific practices in community ecology. Among key future challenges are the integration of mechanistic modelling and multi‐trophic interactions. Main conclusions Our conclusion is that the filtering framework still holds promise, but only if researchers successfully navigate major pitfalls, foster the integration of mechanistic modelling and multi‐trophic interactions and directly account for uncertainty in their conclusions.
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 | 0.030 | 0.226 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".