Data from: Persistently rare species experience stronger negative frequency dependence than common species: a statistical attractor that is hard to avoid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: Why are so many species rare, yet persistent? Possibly, rare species experience strong negative frequency dependence (NFD, i.e. strong intraspecific competition relative to interspecific competition), which both makes them rare and buffers them against extinction. A second, not mutually exclusive, possibility is that rare species that experience weak NFD go extinct quickly due to demographic and environmental stochasticity. Both possibilities predict that persistent rare species will experience stronger NFD than common ones. Yenni et al. (2017) confirmed this prediction in a range of mostly-terrestrial communities. Here we test that prediction in lake zooplankton, and explore its theoretical basis. Location: 53 temperate lakes Time period: 1970-2011 Major taxa studied: Cladocerans, copepods Methods: We used long-term time series data to estimate the covariance between strength of NFD and mean frequency (relative abundance) for crustacean zooplankton. We used a randomization test to ask whether the covariance between NFD and mean frequency is stronger than expected, given sampling error. We also calculated the covariance between NFD and mean frequency in simulated communities from three different ecological models. Results: Rare species experience significantly stronger NFD than common species in over half of the communities. The distribution of associations between NFD and rarity is skewed towards weak associations, which always occur in communities with high evenness. All three theoretical models reproduce these empirical results, even though they are based on different mechanisms (demographic or environmental stochasticity, and mathematical constraints on possible NFD-frequency relationships). Main conclusions: Rare species typically experience stronger NFD than common ones because there are many different ecological scenarios in which they will do so, and only a few scenarios in which they won't. Like several other macroecological patterns, the tendency for rare species to experience stronger NFD than common ones is a "statistical attractor" that is hard to avoid.
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 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".