ArticlePloS one2024
Detecting the ecological footprint of selection.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The structure of communities is influenced by many ecological and evolutionary processes, but the way these manifest in classic biodiversity patterns often remains unclear. Here we aim to distinguish the ecological footprint of selection-through competition or environmental filtering-from that of neutral processes that are invariant to species identity. We build on existing Massive Eco-evolutionary Synthesis Simulations (MESS), which uses information from three biodiversity axes-species abundances, genetic diversity, and trait variation-to distinguish between mechanistic processes. To correctly detect and characterise competition, we add a new and more realistic form of competition that explicitly compares the traits of each pair of individuals. Our results are qualitatively different to those of previous work in which competition is based on the distance of each individual's trait to the community mean. We find that our new form of competition is easier to identify in empirical data compared to the alternatives. This is especially true when trait data are available and used in the inference procedure. Our findings hint that signatures in empirical data previously attributed to neutrality may in fact be the result of pairwise-acting selective forces. We conclude that gathering more different types of data, together with more advanced mechanistic models and inference as done here, could be the key to unravelling the mechanisms of community assembly and question the relative roles of neutral and selective processes.
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.