Global pattern and local variation in species–area relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Aim We conducted a meta‐analysis of species–area relationships (SARs) by combining several data sets and important covariates such as types of islands, taxonomic groups, latitude and spatial extent, in a hierarchical model framework to study global pattern and local variation in SARs and its consequences for prediction. Location One thousand nine hundred and eighteen islands from 94 SAR studies from around the world. Methods We developed a generalization of the power‐law SAR model, the HSARX model, which allows: (1) the inclusion of multiple focal parameters (intercept, slope, within‐study variance), (2) use of multiple effect modifiers based on a collection of SAR studies, and (3) modelling of the between‐ and within‐study variability. Results The global pattern in the SAR was the average of local SARs and had wide confidence intervals. The global SAR slope was 0.228 with 90% confidence limits of 0.059 and 0.412. The intercept, slope and within‐study variability of local SARs showed great heterogeneity as a result of the interaction of modifying covariates. Confidence intervals for these SAR parameters were narrower when other covariates in addition to area were accounted for, thus increasing the accuracy of the predictions for species richness. The significant effect of latitude and the interaction of latitude, taxa and island type on the SAR slope indicated that the ‘typical’ latitudinal diversity gradient can be reversed in isolated systems. Main conclusions The power‐law relationship underlying the HSARX model provides a good fit for non‐nested SARs across vastly different spatial scales by taking into account other covariates. The HSARX framework allows researchers to explore the complex interactions among SAR parameters and modifying variables, to explicitly study the scale dependence, and to make robust predictions on multiple levels (island, study, global) with associated prediction intervals. From a prediction perspective, it is not the global pattern but the local variation that matters.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".