Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ecological communities are complex, and this complexity can obscure their underlying patterns and natural laws. One way to understand communities is to summarize their most important characteristics using consistent measures. Community structure is a set of measures of composition, abundance, distribution, and interaction that describe an ecological community over space and time. Trophic structure is an important aspect of community structure, and relates to energy and nutrient flow, especially the distribution of organisms across trophic levels. Trophic level is the energetic distance of an organism from the base of production – its average position in the food chains to which it belongs. Due to energetic inefficiencies, we generally predict that organisms decrease in number and biomass with trophic level, forming trophic pyramids (known as "pyramids of numbers" and "pyramids of biomass", respectively). Other, non-pyramidal trophic structures are also common, and trophic structure is affected by variables at multiple ecological scales. The objective of this thesis is to investigate determinants of trophic and community structure, including latitude, ecosystem type, biome transition, community composition, and body size. While pyramids of numbers and pyramids of biomass are well-studied, few have investigated the trophic distribution of diversity. Using a meta-analysis approach, I found that, on average, large published food webs form pyramids of species richness, with a decrease in number of species as trophic level increased. Trophic diversity structure was correlated to centrality, latitude, ecosystem type, and study identity.Community structure varies spatially, as can be seen even by a casual observer at interfaces between biomes. I studied how macroinvertebrate and soil prokaryote communities changed latitudinally along the forest-tundra biome transition in the Yukon, and how the communities responded to other environmental variables. I found that the communities differed between sites, changed along the latitudinal transect, and responded to environmental variables at multiple scales, including active layer depth, lichen cover, and road proximity. Loss of predators can have profound effects on community structure. I used an experimental approach to investigate the effect of spider assemblage composition and diversity on prey consumption. I hypothesized that diverse assemblages would consume more prey due to niche complementarity and sampling effects. I found, however, that the spiders were generalist and intraguild predators, and that the one-species assemblage consumed the most prey. Spider body size affects its trophic niche, energy requirements, and interspecific interactions, and as a result, body size mediates the relationship between spider assemblage composition and prey consumption. The body size of an organism affects how it interacts with other organisms and its biological rates. I used a meta-analytic approach to test several prediction regarding the relationship between body mass and trophic properties of terrestrial vertebrate predators: Accipitridae (hawks, eagles, and their relatives), Felidae (cats), and Serpentes (snakes). I found that the predators chose prey smaller than themselves, within a predictable mass range. Prey taxonomic diversity increased with Serpentes mass. Counter to theory, Felidae trophic level decreased with body mass, and Felidae and Accipitridae predator-prey body mass ratio increased with trophic level. We currently live in the Anthropocene, an epoch characterized by anthropogenic geological, atmospheric, and biological change. These changes are affecting community structure, which in turn is affecting human access to the benefits provided by nature. Therefore, it is important that we continue to study community structure and the variables that affect it, so that we can predict and respond to ecological change in the Anthropocene.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".