Disentangling metacommunity processes using multiple metrics in space and time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Metacommunity ecology has focused on using observational and analytical approaches to disentangle the role of critical assembly processes, such as dispersal limitation and environmental filtering. Many methods have been proposed for this purpose, most notably multivariate analyses of species abundance and its association with variation in spatial and environmental conditions. These approaches tend to focus on few emergent properties of metacommunities and have largely ignored temporal community dynamics. By doing so, these are limited in their ability to differentiate metacommunity dynamics. Here, we develop a Virtual ecologist’ approach to evaluate critical metacommunity assembly processes based on a number of summary statistics of community structure across space and time. Specifically, we first simulate metacommunities emphasizing three main processes that underlie metacommunity dynamics (density-independent responses to abiotic conditions, density-dependent biotic interactions, and dispersal). We then calculate a number of commonly used summary statistics of community structure in space and time, and use random forests to evaluate their utility for understanding the strength of these three processes. We found that: (i) time series are necessary to disentangle metacommunity processes, (ii) each of the three studied processes is distinguished with different descriptors, (iii) each summary statistic is differently sensitive to temporal and spatial sampling effort. Some of the most useful statistics include the coefficient of variation of abundances through time and metrics that incorporate variation in the relative abundances (evenness) of species. Surprisingly, we found that when we only used a single snapshot of community variation in space, the most commonly used approaches based on variation partitioning were largely uninformative regarding assembly processes, particularly, variation in dispersal. We conclude that a combination of methods and summary statistics will be necessary to understand the processes that underlie metacommunity assembly through space and time.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".