Dominance, diversity, and niche breadth in arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Classical theory identifies resource competition as the major structuring force of biotic communities and predicts that (i) levels of dominance and richness in communities are inversely related, (ii) narrow niches allow dense "packing" in niche space and thus promote diversity, and (iii) dominants are generalists with wide niches, such that locally abundant taxa also exhibit wide distributions. Current empirical support, however, is mixed. We tested these expectations using published data on arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungal community composition worldwide. We recorded the expected negative relationship between dominance and richness and, to a degree, the positive association between local and global dominance. However, contrary to expectations, dominance was pronounced in communities where more specialists were present and, conversely, richness was higher in communities with more generalists. Thus, resource competition and niche packing appear to be of limited importance in AM fungal community assembly; rather, patterns of dominance and diversity seem more consistent with habitat filtering and stochastic processes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 teacher head, 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".