Wetland hydroperiod predicts community structure, but not the magnitude of cross-community congruence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A major focus in community ecology is understanding how biological interactions and environmental conditions shape horizontal communities. However, few studies have explored whether cross-community interactions are consistent or non-stationary across environmental gradients. Using the relative abundance of birds, aquatic macroinvertebrates and plants, we examined how cross-community congruence varied between short and long-hydroperiod prairie pothole wetlands in southern Alberta. These wetlands are structured by their hydroperiod: the length of time that ponded water is present in the wetland. We compared the strength of cross-community congruence and the strength of congruence between each horizontal community and wetland hydroperiod in wetlands that typically contain ponded water throughout the year to wetlands that dry up every summer. The strength of cross-community relationships was similar between more permanent and more ephemeral wetland classes, suggesting that biological interactions have a near equivalent role in shaping community composition, regardless of hydroperiod. However, because cross-community congruence, measured as the Procrustes pseudo-R value, was, on average, 77% ± SE 12% greater than that between each horizontal community and measures of wetland hydroperiod, we concluded that community structure is not shaped by hydroperiod alone. We attribute the observed cross-community congruence to (1) plants and aquatic macroinvertebrates influence birds through habitat and food provisioning, and (2) birds influence plants and aquatic macroinvertebrates by dispersing their propagules.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".