The role of habitat area and edge in fragmented landscapes: definitively distinct or inevitably intertwined?This review is one of a series dealing with some aspects of the impact of habitat fragmentation on animals and plants. This series is one of several virtual symposia focussing on ecological topics that will be published in the Journal from time to time.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past few decades, much research has focussed on the effects of habitat area (i.e., patch size) and edges in fragmented landscapes. We review and synthesize the literature on area and edge effects to identify whether the ecological processes influenced by patch size and edge are distinct, to summarize evidence for the relative effect of each, and to discuss how estimating their independent effects may be accomplished in field studies. Area and edge directly influence ecological processes in distinct ways, yet indirect effects can be similar, making it difficult to isolate the effects of area and edge in nature. Many studies investigating both area and edge have been confounded in their design and (or) analysis (i.e., studies did not control for one potential effect while testing for the other). Nonconfounded studies have more frequently shown support for edge effects, and comparisons between nonconfounded and confounded studies suggest that some observed area effects could be explained by edge effects. We argue that by focussing on the fundamental processes directly influenced by area and edge, and by developing more rigorous study designs and analyses that isolate their relative influence, greater insight can be gained in future investigations on habitat loss and fragmentation.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".