Evolutionary history influences the effects of water–energy dynamics on oak diversity in Asia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim Water–energy dynamics are often correlated with geographical patterns of terrestrial plant richness. However, the relative importance of water and energy on species richness is still being debated. Some studies suggest a transition in the relative importance of water and energy along a latitudinal gradient, i.e. that water is the most important factor at low latitudes, whereas energy is the leading factor at high latitudes. The generality of this transition is yet to be established and is the focus of the current study. In particular, we examine whether differences in the evolutionary histories of two subgenera of A sian oaks influence the derived models of water–energy dynamics. Location A sia (70–140° E; 10–60° N). Methods We performed geographically weighted regressions to quantify geographical variation in the relative importance of water and energy on the species richness of A sian oaks ( Q uercus L.). We also evaluated how evolutionary history influences the relative importance of water and energy in determining species richness, by comparing patterns in the two oak subgenera: Q uercus subg. Q uercus and Q uercus subg. C yclobalanopsis . In particular, we assessed how the ancestral climatic niche of these two subgenera (i.e. subgenus Q uercus of temperate origin versus subgenus C yclobalanopsis of tropical origin) relates to the relative importance of water and energy on contemporary diversity patterns. Results We found no geographical transition line in the relative importance of water and energy along the latitudinal gradient studied. Instead, we found that the importance of energy relative to water on the species richness of subgenus Q uercus increased from mid‐latitudes (warm temperate regions) towards both tropical and boreal regions: this pattern might reflect that this subgenus originated in the temperate region. In contrast, the importance of both water and energy on the species richness of the tropical subgenus C yclobalanopsis increased from tropical to boreal regions, probably due to a lack of adaptation to winter coldness. Main conclusions Our results suggest that differences in the evolutionary history – specifically the ancestral climatic niche – of the two subgenera of oaks influence the effects of water–energy dynamics on species richness along a latitudinal gradient through niche conservatism.
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 | 0.000 | 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".