Beta‐diversity gradients of butterflies along productivity axes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Aim Several lines of evidence suggest that beta diversity, or dissimilarity in species composition, should increase with productivity: (1) the latitudinal species richness gradient is most closely related to productivity and associated latitudinal beta‐diversity relationships have been described, and (2) the scale dependence of the productivity–diversity relationship implies that there should be a positive productivity–beta‐diversity relationship. However, such a pattern has not yet been demonstrated at broad scales. We test if there is a gradient of increasing beta diversity with productivity. Location Canada. Methods Canada was clustered into regions of similar productivity regimes along three remotely sensed productivity axes (minimum and integrated annual productivity, seasonality of productivity) and elevation. The overall (β j ), turnover (β sim ) and nestedness (β nes ) components of beta diversity within each productivity regime were estimated with pairwise dissimilarity metrics and related to cluster productivity with partial linear regression and with spatial autoregression. Tests were performed for all species, productivity breadth‐based subsets (e.g. species occurring in many and a moderate number of productivity regimes), and pre‐ and post‐1970 butterfly records. Beta diversity between adjacent clusters along the productivity gradients was also evaluated. Results Within‐cluster β j and β sim increased with productivity and decreased with seasonality. The converse was true for β nes . All species subsets responded similarly; however, productivity–beta‐diversity relationships were weaker for the post‐1970 temporal subset and strongest for species of moderate breadth. Between‐cluster beta diversity (β j ) and nestedness (β nes ) declined with productivity. Main conclusions As predicted, beta diversity of communities within productivity regimes was observed to increase with productivity. This pattern was driven largely by a gradient of species turnover. Therefore, beta diversity may make an important contribution to the broad‐scale gradient of species richness with productivity. However, this species richness gradient dominates regional beta diversity between productivity regimes, resulting in decreasing between‐productivity dissimilarity with productivity driven by a concurrent decline in nestedness.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".