Understanding the emergence of contingent and deterministic exclusion in multispecies communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Competitive exclusion can be classified as deterministic or as historically contingent. While competitive exclusion is common in nature, it has remained unclear when multispecies communities formed by more than two species should be dominated by deterministic or contingent exclusion. Here, we take a fully parameterised model of an empirical competitive system between invasive annual and native perennial plant species to explain both the emergence and sources of competitive exclusion in multispecies communities. Using a structural approach to understand the range of parameters promoting deterministic and contingent exclusions, we then find heuristic theoretical support for the following three general conclusions. First, we find that the life-history of perennial species increases the probability of observing contingent exclusion by increasing their effective intrinsic growth rates. Second, we find that the probability of observing contingent exclusion increases with weaker intraspecific competition, and not with the level of hierarchical competition. Third, we find a shift from contingent exclusion to deterministic exclusion with increasing numbers of competing species. Our work provides a heuristic framework to increase our understanding about the predictability of species persistence within multispecies communities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".