Genetic and species-level biodiversity patterns are linked by demography and ecological opportunity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The processes that give rise to species richness gradients are not well understood, but may be linked to resource-based limits on the number of species a region can support. Ecological limits placed on regional species richness would also limit population sizes, suggesting that these processes could also generate genetic diversity gradients. If true, we might better understand how broad-scale biodiversity patterns are formed by identifying the common causes of genetic diversity and species richness. We develop a hypothetical framework based on the consequences of regional variation in ecological limits to simultaneously explain spatial patterns of species richness and neutral genetic diversity. Repurposing raw genotypic data spanning 38 mammal species sampled across 801 sites in North America, we show that estimates of genome-wide genetic diversity and species richness share spatial structure. Notably, species richness hotspots tend to harbor lower levels of within-species genetic variation. A structural equation model encompassing eco-evolutionary processes related to resource availability, habitat heterogeneity, and human disturbance explained 78% of variation in genetic diversity and 74% of the variation in species richness. These results suggest we can infer broad-scale patterns of species and genetic diversity using two simple environmental measures of resource availability and ecological opportunity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".