Multifaceted diversity–area relationships reveal global hotspots of mammalian species, trait and lineage diversity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To define biome-scale hotspots of phylogenetic and functional mammalian biodiversity (PD and FD, respectively) and compare them to 'classical' hotspots based on species richness (SR) only. LOCATION: Global. METHODS: SR, PD & FD were computed for 782 terrestrial ecoregions using distribution ranges of 4616 mammalian species. We used a set of comprehensive diversity indices unified by a recent framework that incorporates the species relative coverage in each ecoregion. We build large-scale multifaceted diversity-area relationships to rank ecoregions according to their levels of biodiversity while accounting for the effect of area on each diversity facet. Finally we defined hotspots as the top-ranked ecoregions. RESULTS: While ignoring species relative coverage led to a relative good congruence between biome top ranked SR, PD and FD hotspots, ecoregions harboring a rich and abundantly represented evolutionary history and functional diversity did not match with top ranked ecoregions defined by species richness. More importantly PD and FD hotspots showed important spatial mismatches. We also found that FD and PD generally reached their maximum values faster than species richness as a function of area. MAIN CONCLUSIONS: The fact that PD/FD reach faster their maximal value than SR may suggest that the two former facets might be less vulnerable to habitat loss than the latter. While this point is expected, it is the first time that it is quantified at global scale and should have important consequences in conservation. Incorporating species relative coverage into the delineation of multifaceted hotspots of diversity lead to weak congruence between SR, PD and FD hotspots. This means that maximizing species number may fail at preserving those nodes (in the phylogenetic or functional tree) that are relatively abundant in the ecoregion. As a consequence it may be of prime importance to adopt a multifaceted biodiversity perspective to inform conservation strategies at global scale.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".