MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380872325 · doi:10.1111/ele.14265

The ecological causes of functional distinctiveness in communities

2023· review· en· W4380872325 on OpenAlexaff
François Munoz, Christopher A. Klausmeier, Pierre Gaüzère, Gaurav S. Kandlikar, Elena Litchman, Nicolas Mouquet, Annette Ostling, Wilfried Thuiller, Adam C. Algar, Arnaud Auber, Marc W. Cadotte, Léo Delalandre, Pierre Denelle, Brian J. Enquist, Claire Fortunel, Matthias Grenié, Nicolas Loiseau, Lucie Mahaut, Anthony Maire, David Mouillot, Catalina Pimiento, Cyrille Violle, Nathan J. B. Kraft

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology Letters · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoThe Scarborough HospitalLakehead University
FundersDivision of Environmental BiologyElectricité de FranceÉlectricité de FranceFondation pour la Recherche sur la BiodiversiteNational Science Foundation
KeywordsEcologyTraitOptimal distinctiveness theoryBiologyBiological dispersalBiodiversityPopulationEcosystemCommunity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent work has shown that evaluating functional trait distinctiveness, the average trait distance of a species to other species in a community offers promising insights into biodiversity dynamics and ecosystem functioning. However, the ecological mechanisms underlying the emergence and persistence of functionally distinct species are poorly understood. Here, we address the issue by considering a heterogeneous fitness landscape whereby functional dimensions encompass peaks representing trait combinations yielding positive population growth rates in a community. We identify four ecological cases contributing to the emergence and persistence of functionally distinct species. First, environmental heterogeneity or alternative phenotypic designs can drive positive population growth of functionally distinct species. Second, sink populations with negative population growth can deviate from local fitness peaks and be functionally distinct. Third, species found at the margin of the fitness landscape can persist but be functionally distinct. Fourth, biotic interactions (positive or negative) can dynamically alter the fitness landscape. We offer examples of these four cases and guidelines to distinguish between them. In addition to these deterministic processes, we explore how stochastic dispersal limitation can yield functional distinctiveness. Our framework offers a novel perspective on the relationship between fitness landscape heterogeneity and the functional composition of ecological assemblages.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.840
Threshold uncertainty score0.958

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.196
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.084 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology LettersSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207