Supporting data to: Evolution of realized Eltonian niches across Rajidae species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The notion that closely related species resemble each other in ecological niche space (i.e., phylogenetic dependence) has been a longstanding, contentious paradigm in evolutionary biology, the incidence of which is important for predicting the ecosystem-level effects of species loss. Despite being examined across a multitude of terrestrial taxa, many aspects of niche conservatism have yet to be explored in marine species, especially for characteristics related to resource use and trophic behavior (Eltonian niche characteristics, ENCs). We combined ENCs derived from stable isotope ratios at assemblage- and species-levels with phylogenetic comparative methods to test the hypotheses that benthic marine fishes: 1) will exhibit similar assemblage-wide ENCs regardless of geographic location, and 2) will display phylogenetically dependent ENCs at the species-level. We used a 12-species sub-set of the monophyletic group Rajidae sampled from three independent assemblages (Central California, Gulf of Alaska, and Northwest Atlantic), which span two ocean basins. Assemblage-level ENCs implied low trophic diversity and high evenness, suggesting that Rajidae assemblages may exhibit a well-defined trophic role, a trend consistent regardless of geographic location. At the species-level we found evidence for phylogenetic dependence of ENCs relating to trophic diversity (i.e., isotopic niche width [SEAc]). Whether individuals can be considered functional equivalents across assemblages is hard to ascertain because we did not detect a significant phylogenetic signal for ENCs relating to trophic function (e.g., trophic position). Thus, additional, complimentary approaches are required to further examine the phylogenetic dependence of species functionality. Our approach illustrates the potential of stable isotope derived niche characteristics to provide insight on macroecological processes occurring across evolutionary time, which could help predict how assemblages may respond to the effects of species loss.
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.742 | 0.251 |
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".