MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009479516 · doi:10.1111/jvs.12255

Functional diversity reveals complex assembly processes on sea‐born volcanic islands

2014· article· en· W2009479516 on OpenAlex
Elpida Karadimou, Ioannis Tsiripidis, Athanasios S. Kallimanis, Thomas Raus, Panagiotis Dimopoulos

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vegetation Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsSpecies evennessEcologySpecies richnessNull modelRange (aeronautics)HabitatBiologyPlant community

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Questions Do the mechanisms driving community assembly differ between two islands of different age and history of vegetation development? How does sampling scale affect the strength that each assembly mechanism poses on the assembly of plant communities? Location Volcanic islands (Palea Kameni and Nea Kameni) of Santorini Archipelago, Greece. Methods Functional diversity has been proposed as a framework for discriminating among mechanisms of community assembly, such as habitat filtering, limiting similarity and random assembly. We investigated four plant communities in two sea‐born volcanic islands. We recorded plant diversity at scales from 1 m 2 to 64 m 2 . We calculated three indices of functional diversity: functional richness, functional evenness and functional divergence, using 26 functional traits (including vegetative characteristics, ecological preferences and regenerative characteristics). We used null model analysis to test for two different assembly mechanisms: habitat filtering and limiting similarity or random assembly. Results The assemblage of the four communities was complex and did not follow a single mechanism. In most cases, finer‐scale patterns indicated randomness, while coarser scales revealed more structured communities. In the older island, the scrub community was mainly defined by limiting similarity. The therophytic community displayed a limited range of functional traits, indicating mainly habitat filtering, but within this range, the evenness of the distribution indicated limiting similarity. On the younger island, the range of traits did not differ from random. However, within this range of traits, one therophytic community showed signs of limiting similarity, while the second therophytic community displayed uneven functional trait distribution, indicating mainly habitat filtering. The three indices reflected different facets of functional diversity and were not correlated, thus we may argue that they are not redundant, and we even detected different mechanisms of assembly within the same community. Conclusions The functional diversity of the therophytic communities in the younger island implied no specific assembly mechanism; perhaps due to its age, the community is still at the early stages of colonization (i.e. stochastic processes, such as arrival of new species, prevail). In the older island, the lack of disturbances for a long period allowed the establishment of communities assembled by specific mechanisms, such as competition and habitat filtering.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.646

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.236 · 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