An Integrative Perspective On the Mechanistic Basis of Context- Dependent Species Interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has long been known that the outcome of species interactions depends on the environmental context in which they occur. Climate change research has sparked a renewed interest in context-dependent species interactions because rapidly changing abiotic environments will cause species interactions to occur in novel contexts and researchers must incorporate this in their predictions of species' responses to climate change. Here, we argue that predicting how the environment will alter the outcome of species interactions requires an integrative biology approach that focuses on the traits, mechanisms, and processes that bridge disciplines such as physiology, biomechanics, ecology, and evolutionary biology. Specifically, we advocate for quantifying how species differ in their tolerance and performance to both environmental challenges independent of species interactions, and in interactions with other species as a function of the environment. Such an approach increases our understanding of the mechanisms underlying outcomes of species interactions across different environmental contexts. This understanding will help determine how the outcome of species interactions affects the relative abundance and distribution of the interacting species in nature. A general theme that emerges from this perspective is that species are unable to maintain high levels of performance across different environmental contexts because of trade-offs between physiological tolerance to environmental challenges and performance in species interactions. Thus, an integrative biology paradigm that focuses on the trade-offs across environments, the physiological mechanisms involved, and how the ecological context impacts the outcome of species interactions provides a stronger framework to understand why species interactions are context dependent.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".