Biogeographical variation in arthropod communities on coyote bush, <i>Baccharis pilularis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A classic pattern in biogeography is the decline in species richness from lower to higher latitudes. Communities, however, can also vary with other geographical patterns, such as the abiotic gradients that occur from coastal to interior habitats. In this study, we surveyed arthropod communities and herbivore pressure on populations of a dominant shrub, Baccharis pilularis , across a 2000 km latitudinal transect to determine whether coastal versus interior location mediates arthropod responses to latitude. We found that arthropod species richness and abundance declined with increasing latitude. We also found significant coastal‐interior shifts in community composition and trophic structure. Specifically, predator and scavenger richness were two and three fold greater at coastal sites compared to interior sites, and were three‐ and six‐fold more abundant on the coast than in the interior. Herbivore pressure displayed a similar pattern, with greater abundance at lower latitudes and at coastal sites. Our results corroborate the general macroecological pattern that diversity declines with increasing latitude, and that coastal versus interior location can also shape community assemblages. We did not, however, find any interaction between latitude and location suggesting the effect of latitude on arthropod communities remains consistent inland compared to more constant coastal conditions.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".