MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995390095 · doi:10.1890/08-1885.1

Linking populations to landscapes: richness scenarios resulting from changes in the dynamics of an ecosystem engineer

2009· article· en· W1995390095 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Justin P. Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and biodiversity studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilMcGill UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSpecies richnessEcosystem engineerEcologyBeaverEcosystemHabitatRiparian zoneSpecies diversityPopulationBiodiversityGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Predicting the effects of the loss of individual species on diversity represents one of the primary challenges facing community ecology. One pathway by which organisms of one species affect the distribution of species is ecosystem engineering. Changes in the dynamics of ecosystem engineers that lead to changes in the distribution of the patches of altered habitat are likely to lead to changes in diversity. I link data on the distribution of plant species found in the riparian zone of the Adirondacks (New York, USA) in patches modified by beaver and in unmodified forest patches to a model connecting the dynamics of ecosystem engineers to the dynamics of the patches that they create. These analyses demonstrate that changes in key parameters of the model, such as decreases in beaver colonization rates and rate of patch abandonment, lead to changes in species richness of up to 45% at the landscape scale, and that these changes are likely to occur over long time scales. This general approach of linking the population dynamics or behavior of a single species to changes in species richness at the landscape scale provides a means for both testing the importance of ecosystem engineering in different systems and developing scenarios to predict how changes in the dynamics of a single species are likely to affect species richness.

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)0.000
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 score0.216
Threshold uncertainty score0.798

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations40
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcologySame topicEcology and biodiversity studiesFrench-language works237,207