ArticleEcology and evolution2023
Alternative measures of trait-niche relationships: A test on dispersal traits in saproxylic beetles.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fish and Zooplankton Co-Responses to Environmental Gradients Under Different Climate Change Scenarios.Global change biology · 2026Article
- Alternative measures of trait-niche relationships: A test on dispersal traits in saproxylic beetles.Ecology and evolution · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 8 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Functional trait approaches are common in ecology, but a lack of clear hypotheses on how traits relate to environmental gradients (i.e., trait-niche relationships) often makes uncovering mechanisms difficult. Furthermore, measures of community functional structure differ in their implications, yet inferences are seldom compared among metrics. Community-weighted mean trait values (CWMs), a common measure, are largely driven by the most common species and thus do not reflect community-wide trait-niche relationships per se. Alternatively, trait-niche relationships can be estimated across a larger group of species using hierarchical joint species distribution models (JSDMs), quantified by a parameter Γ. We investigated how inferences about trait-niche relationships are affected by the choice of metric. Using deadwood-dependent (saproxylic) beetles in fragmented Finnish forests, we followed a protocol for investigating trait-niche relationships by (1) identifying environmental filters (climate, forest age, and deadwood volume), (2) relating these to an ecological function (dispersal ability), and (3) identifying traits related to this function (wing morphology). We tested 18 hypothesized dispersal relationships using both CWM and Γ estimates across these environmental gradients. CWMs were more likely than Γ to show support for trait-niche relationships. Up to 13% of species' realized niches were explained by dispersal traits, but the directions of effects were consistent with fewer than 11%-39% of our 18 trait-niche hypotheses (depending on the metric used). This highlights the difficulty in connecting morphological traits and ecological functions in insects, despite the clear conceptual link between landscape connectivity and flight-related traits. Caution is thus warranted in hypothesis development, particularly where apparent trait-function links are less clear. Inferences differ when CWMs versus Γ estimates are used, necessitating the choice of a metric that reflects study questions. CWMs help explain the effects of environmental gradients on community trait composition, whereas the effects of traits on species' niches are better estimated using hierarchical JSDMs.
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.