A space-for-time approach for evaluating community keystoneness in metacommunities under disturbance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding how metacommunities respond to natural and anthropogenic disturbances is a key objective in ecology. In this study, we introduce a robust analytical framework to identify communities whose extirpation triggers stronger (hereafter keystone communities) or weaker (hereafter idle communities) cascading effects on extinction and colonization events that ultimately drive temporal changes in compositional patterns of the remaining communities. These cascading dynamics reflect the impact of extirpated communities on connectivity and subsequent dispersal dynamics. Since the framework uses spatial information on compositional similarities to infer changes that would unfold over time due to the extirpation of one or more communities, we describe it as a space-for-time approach. Through mechanistic simulation models that replicate removal experiments, we demonstrate that our framework accurately estimates ”keystoneness”, ranking local communities by their role in maintaining the metacommunity’s compositional patterns. As such, our models demonstrate that the relationship between patch characteristics and our keystoneness metric is closely linked to the structure and dynamics of their metacommunities. A key feature of our framework is its ability to generate community keystoneness estimates that are statistically independent of local diversity, providing a valuable tool for assessing the relevance and conservation value of local communities. This is particularly important in cases where high local diversity reflects an influx of individuals into demographic sinks, a common consequence of human activities near natural areas. To showcase the unique insights of this framework, we examined and contrasted the effects of artificial light at night on the diversity and keystoneness of a moth metacommunity sampled over two decades. We conclude with a discussion of the framework’s potential applications and underlying assumptions, emphasizing its relevance for addressing both conceptual and applied ecological questions, particularly its potential to assess the conservation value of local communities under ecological stress.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".