Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39294211›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Species interactions drive continuous assembly of freshwater communities in stochastic environments.

Andrea Tabi, Tadeu Siqueira, Jonathan D Tonkin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Andrea TabiComputational Science Lab, Informatics Institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. a.tabi@uva.nl.
Tadeu SiqueiraSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Jonathan D TonkinSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Funding

Royal Society Te Aparangi RDF-18-UOC-007
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding the factors driving the maintenance of long-term biodiversity in changing environments is essential for improving restoration and sustainability strategies in the face of global environmental change. Biodiversity is shaped by both niche and stochastic processes, however the strength of deterministic processes in unpredictable environmental regimes is highly debated. Since communities continuously change over time and space-species persist, disappear or (re)appear-understanding the drivers of species gains and losses from communities should inform us about whether niche or stochastic processes dominate community dynamics. Applying a nonparametric causal discovery approach to a 30-year time series containing annual abundances of benthic invertebrates across 66 locations in New Zealand rivers, we found a strong negative causal relationship between species gains and losses directly driven by predation indicating that niche processes dominate community dynamics. Despite the unpredictable nature of these system, environmental noise was only indirectly related to species gains and losses through altering life history trait distribution. Using a stochastic birth-death framework, we demonstrate that the negative relationship between species gains and losses can not emerge without strong niche processes. Our results showed that even in systems that are dominated by unpredictable environmental variability, species interactions drive continuous community assembly.

Indexed as

BiodiversityFresh WaterStochastic ProcessesAnimalsEcosystemInvertebratesNew ZealandPopulation DynamicsRiversBiodiversity maintenanceBody size scalingCausal inferenceCommunity assemblyStochastic modeling

Identifiers

PMID39294211
PMCPMC11411068

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.