Geographic Gradients in Species Interactions: From Latitudinal Patterns to Ecological Mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The idea that species interactions are more ecologically and evolutionarily important toward lower latitudes underpins seminal theories in ecology and evolution. Recent global studies have found the predicted latitudinal gradients in interactions, particularly predation. However, latitudinal patterns alone do not reveal why interactions vary geographically and so do not provide strong predictions in space (e.g., for specific ecosystems) or time (e.g., forecasting responses to global change). Here, I review theory to identify a clearer, mechanistic, and testable framework for predicting geographic variation in the importance of species interactions. I review competing metrics of importance, proximate mechanisms that can increase interaction importance, and environmental gradients that could generate predictable geographic patterns (climate extremes and stability, warmer temperatures, productivity, and biodiversity). Strong empirical tests are accumulating thanks to the rise of global experiments and datasets; renewed focus on testing why interactions vary spatially will help move the field from identifying latitudinal patterns to understanding broader mechanisms.
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) | 0.013 | 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".