MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2111519093 · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2699.2002.00686.x

Nested species assemblages of amphibians and reptiles on islands in the Laurentian Great Lakes

2002· article· en· W2111519093 sur OpenAlexaff
Stephen J. Hecnar, Gary S. Casper, Ronald W. Russell, Darlene R. Hecnar, J. N. Robinson

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Biogeography · 2002
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Établissements canadiensLakehead University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésNestednessEcologySpecies richnessGeographyFaunaArchipelagoBiogeographyBiotaBiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Aim The amphibians and reptiles of the Great Lakes are diverse in their basic biology and natural history. These species are also widely distributed and overlap highly in their spatial extent. The Great Lakes basin includes 35,000 islands that differ in aspects of their geography, geology and climate, but that share a common post‐glacial history. This system provides a unique opportunity to assess the relative importance of biotic vs. abiotic factors in the development of nestedness. Our goal was to document and explain the patterns of nestedness across a variety of spatial and taxonomic scales. Location We studied amphibian and reptile assemblages (forty‐five species) occurring on 107 islands among four archipelagoes (Lake Erie, St Lawrence, Georgian Bay, Apostle) in the Laurentian Great Lakes of North America. The entire basin was recolonized in the post‐Pleistocene by amphibians and reptiles following the final retreat of the Wisconsin ice sheet. The present configuration of lakes and islands has existed over the past 5000 years. Most islands are landbridges; however, lake level fluctuation in Lake Huron inundated some islands of low relief. Presumably most islands would contain primarily extinction – as opposed to colonization – driven faunas. Methods We used data from four recent and thorough surveys to construct presence–absence matrices. To quantify nestedness of assemblages we used the nested temperature ( T ) method. To assess the association of nestedness with area and isolation we used the departures method. To quantify nestedness at the species level we used the Wilcoxon two‐sample method. To analyse species richness and patterns of nestedness we used multiple regression, and two‐way ANOVA . Results Islands supported diverse assemblages of both amphibians and reptiles that were in harmony with their mainland species pool(s). We found highly significant nestedness across the entire basin, all archipelagoes and all taxonomic levels. However, the degree of nestedness did not differ significantly among archipelagoes. The degree of nestedness did differ significantly (most to least) among classes (reptiles, amphibians) and orders (snakes, turtles, frogs, salamanders). Patterns of nestedness were more complex at the species level where some species were nested in all archipelagoes, while other species were in some locations but not others. Species richness and nestedness were strongly associated with area but not isolation. Main conclusions The similarity of the insular and mainland faunas indicate that the entire Great Lakes basin shares virtually the same species pool. Although some abiotic differences exist among the archipelagoes, their common history and similar contemporary habitats can explain the lack of differences among archipelagoes in nestedness. Significant differences among taxa in nestedness were consistent across the basin and appear to be related to differences in basic biology, natural history and ecology. Both nestedness and species richness were significantly related to area but not isolation. Most islands in the Great Lakes are not highly isolated and ample evidence exists that dispersal plays a role in community assembly. The strong area effect can be explained by the differences among taxa in their biotic characteristics and habitat requirements. Our results indicate that preserving large islands instead of equivalent areas of small islands would be a more effective conservation strategy and that results of studies conducted on Great Lakes islands may be applicable elsewhere in the basin.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,003
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,504

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,014
Tête enseignante GPT0,202
Écart entre enseignants0,188 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations51
Publié2002
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of BiogeographyMême sujetWildlife Ecology and ConservationTravaux en français237 207