Species interactions limit the predictability of community responses to environmental change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractPredicting how ecological communities respond to environmental change is challenging, but highly relevant in this global change era. Ecologists commonly use current spatial relationships between species and environmental conditions to make predictions about the future. This assumes that species will track conditions by shifting their distributions. However, theory and experimental evidence suggest that species interactions prevent communities from predictably tracking temporal changes in environmental conditions, based on current spatial relationships between species and environmental gradients. We tested this hypothesis by assessing the dynamics of protist species in replicated two-patch microcosm landscapes that experienced different regimes of spatial and temporal environmental heterogeneity (light vs. dark). Populations were kept in monoculture or polyculture to assess the effect of species interactions. In monoculture, abundances were predictable based on current environmental conditions, regardless of whether they had experienced temporal environmental change. But, in polyculture, abundances depended also on the history of environmental conditions experienced. This suggests that, because of species interactions, communities should respond differently to spatial versus temporal environmental change. Thus, species interactions likely reduce the accuracy of predictions of future communities that are based on current spatial relationships between species and the environment.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.022 |
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".