Species pool, local assembly processes: Disentangling the mechanisms determining bacterial α‐ and β‐diversity during forest secondary succession
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Across ecology, and particularly within microbial ecology, there is limited understanding how the generation and maintenance of diversity. Although recent work has shown that both local assembly processes and species pools are important in structuring microbial communities, the relative contributions of these mechanisms remain an important question. Moreover, the roles of local assembly processes and species pools are drastically different when explicitly considering the potential for saturation or unsaturation, yet this issue is rarely addressed. Thus, we established a conceptual model that incorporated saturation theory into the microbiological domain to advance the understanding of mechanisms controlling soil bacterial diversity during forest secondary succession. Conceptual model hypotheses were tested by coupling soil bacterial diversity, local assembly processes and species pools using six different forest successional chronosequences distributed across multiple climate zones. Consistent with the unsaturated case proposed in our conceptual framework, we found that species pool consistently affected α-diversity, even while local assembly processes on local richness operate. In contrast, the effects of species pool on β-diversity disappeared once local assembly processes were taken into account, and changes in environmental conditions during secondary succession led to shifts in β-diversity through mediation of the strength of heterogeneous selection. Overall, this study represents one of the first to demonstrate that most local bacterial communities might be unsaturated, where the effect of species pool on α-diversity is robust to the consideration of multiple environmental influences, but β-diversity is constrained by environmental selection.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".