MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1838248692 · doi:10.1890/14-2443.1

The effects of foundation species on community assembly: a global study on alpine cushion plant communities

2015· article· en· W1838248692 on OpenAlexaff
Zaal Kikvidze, Robin W. Brooker, Bradley J. Butterfield, Ragan M. Callaway, Lohengrin A. Cavieres, Bradley J. Cook, Christopher J. Lortie, Richard Michalet, Francisco I. Pugnaire, Sa Xiao, Fabien Anthelme, Robert G. Björk, Brittany H. Cranston, Rosario G. Gavilán, Róbert Kanka, Emanuele Lingua, Jean‐Paul Maalouf, Jalil Noroozi, Rabindra Parajuli, Gareth K. Phoenix, Anya Reid, Wendy M. Ridenour, Christian Rixen, Christian Schöb

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaYork University
FundersMinisterio de Ciencia e InnovaciónNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaJames Hutton Institute
KeywordsEcologyNicheFoundation speciesHabitatCushionFloristicsSpecies diversityPlant communityBiologyFoundation (evidence)Diversity (politics)Community structureEcological nicheBiodiversityTrophic levelSpecies richnessGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Foundation species can change plant community structure by modulating important ecological processes such as community assembly, yet this topic is poorly understood. In alpine systems, cushion plants commonly act as foundation species by ameliorating local conditions. Here, we analyze diversity patterns of species' assembly within cushions and in adjacent surrounding open substrates (83 sites across five continents) calculating floristic dissimilarity between replicate plots, and using linear models to analyze relationships between microhabitats and species diversity. Floristic dissimilarity did not change across biogeographic regions, but was consistently lower in the cushions than in the open microhabitat. Cushion plants appear to enable recruitment of many relatively stress-intolerant species that otherwise would not establish in these communities, yet the niche space constructed by cushion plants supports a more homogeneous composition of species than the niche space beyond the cushion's influence. As a result, cushion plants support higher α-diversity and a larger species pool, but harbor assemblies with lower β-diversity than open microhabitats. We conclude that habitats with and without dominant foundation species can strongly differ in the processes that drive species recruitment, and thus the relationship between local and regional species diversity.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations80
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcologySame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207