Scale dependent diversity patterns in arboreal and terrestrial oribatid mite (Acari: Oribatida) communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In naturally fragmented, isolated, or patchily distributed habitats that contain non‐vagile organisms, we expect dispersal to be limited, and patterns of diversity to differ from similar, yet continuous habitats. We explored the alpha‐beta‐gamma relationship and community composition of oribatid mites (Acari: Oribatida) inhabiting spatially discrete canopy suspended soils, and compared the patterns of diversity with the continuous forest floor soils over two years. We explored dispersal limitation for oribatid mites in the canopy by using additive partitioning of species richness at multiple spatial scales. ANOSIM was used to demonstrate differences in oribatid mite community composition between the canopy and forest floor habitats over different sampling periods. Community composition of oribatid mites differed significantly between canopy and forest floor habitats, by season and yearly sampling period. Oribatid mite richness and abundance were positively correlated with substrate moisture content, particularly in the canopy. Richness and abundance of ground oribatid mites was greater in September than in June, a trend that is reversed in the canopy, suggesting canopy oribatid mite species may have altered life histories to take advantage of earlier moisture conditions. Alpha diversity of oribatid mites in the canopy was lower than the ground at all sampling levels, and not significantly different from a random distribution in either habitat. Beta diversity was greater than expected from a random distribution at the patch‐ and tree‐level in the canopy suggesting dispersal limitation associated with physical tree‐to‐tree dispersal barriers, and limited dispersal among patches within a tree. Beta diversity at the tree‐level was the largest contribution to overall species richness in both canopy and ground habitats, and was also greater than expected on the ground. These results suggest that factors other than physical dispersal barriers, such as aggregation, habitat availability, and environmental factors (moisture), may limit the distribution of species in both habitats.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".