ArticlePeerJ2022
Spatial patterns in the contribution of biotic and abiotic factors to the population dynamics of three freshwater fish species.
Article in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPopulation dynamics are driven by a number of biotic (
methodsHere, we used a long-term (1982-2011), broad scale (182 sites distributed across metropolitan France) dataset to study spatial patterns in the population's dynamics of three freshwater fish species presenting contrasted life-histories and patterns of elevation range shifts in recent decades. We used a hierarchical Bayesian approach together with an elasticity analysis to estimate the relative contribution of a set of biotic (
resultsDespite contrasted life-histories, the three species displayed similar large-scale patterns in population dynamics with a much stronger contribution of biotic factors over abiotic ones. Yet, the contribution of the different factors strongly varied within distributional ranges and followed distinct spatial patterns. Indeed, while abiotic factors mostly varied along elevation, biotic factors-which disproportionately contributed to population dynamics-varied along both elevation and latitude.
conclusionsOverall while our results provide stronger support for the range-shift hypothesis, they also highlight the dual effect of distinct factors on spatial patterns in population dynamics and can explain the overall difficulty to find general evidence for geographic gradients in natural populations. We propose that considering the separate contribution of the factors affecting population dynamics could help better understand the drivers of abundance-distribution patterns.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.