Environmental drivers of local abundance–mass scaling in soil animal communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between species' body masses and densities is strongly conserved around a three‐quarter power law when pooling data across communities. However, studies of local within‐community relationships have revealed major deviations from this general pattern, which has profound implications for their stability and functioning. Despite multiple contributions of soil communities to people, there is limited knowledge on the drivers of body mass–abundance relationships in these communities. We compiled a dataset comprising 155 soil–animal communities across four countries (Canada, Germany, Indonesia, USA), all sampled using the same methodology. We tested if variation in local climatic and edaphic conditions drives differences in local body mass–abundance scaling relationships. We found substantial variation in the slopes of this power‐law relationship across local communities. Structural equation modeling showed that soil temperature and water content have a positive and negative net effect, respectively, on soil communities. These effects are mediated by changes in local edaphic conditions (soil pH and carbon content) and the body‐mass range of the communities. These results highlight ways in which alterations of soil climatic and edaphic conditions interactively impact the distribution of abundance between populations of small and large animals. These quantitative mechanistic relationships facilitate our understanding of how global changes in environmental conditions, such as temperature and precipitation, will affect community–abundance distributions and thus the stability and functioning of soil–animal 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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".