↓ Skip to main content

Null model approaches to evaluating the relative role of different assembly processes in shaping ecological communities

Overview of attention for article published in Oecologia, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
162 Mendeley
Title
Null model approaches to evaluating the relative role of different assembly processes in shaping ecological communities
Published in
Oecologia, December 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00442-014-3170-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Akira S. Mori, Saori Fujii, Ryo Kitagawa, Dai Koide

Abstract

Various local processes simultaneously shape ecological assemblages. β-diversity is a useful metric for inferring the underlying mechanisms of community assembly. However, β-diversity is not independent of γ-diversity, which may mask the local mechanisms that govern community processes across regions. Recent approaches that rely on an abundance-based null model could solve this sampling issue. However, if abundance varies widely across a region, the relative roles of deterministic and stochastic processes may be substantially misestimated. Furthermore, there is additional uncertainty as to whether null models used to correct γ-dependence in β-diversity should be independent of the observed patterns of species abundance distributions or whether the models should reflect these patterns. Here, we aim to test what null models with various constraints imply about the underlying processes shaping β-diversity. First, we found that an abundance-driven sampling effect could substantially influence the calculation of γ-corrected β-diversity. Second, we found that the null models that preserve the species abundance patterns could better reflect empirical patterns of spatial organization of individuals. The different implications generated from different applications of the null model approach therefore suggest that there are still frontiers regarding how local processes that shape species assemblages should be quantified. Carefully exploring each facet within different assembly processes is important.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 162 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 1%
Spain 2 1%
Brazil 2 1%
United States 2 1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Hungary 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 148 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 39 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 23%
Student > Master 29 18%
Other 7 4%
Student > Bachelor 6 4%
Other 23 14%
Unknown 21 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 66 41%
Environmental Science 53 33%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 6 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Unspecified 1 <1%
Other 3 2%
Unknown 28 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 September 2020.
All research outputs
#19,209,245
of 23,803,958 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#3,720
of 4,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#266,687
of 365,109 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#46
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,803,958 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,303 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 365,109 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.