Abundance, spatial variance and occupancy: arthropod species distribution in the Azores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. The positive abundance-occupancy and abundance-variance relationships are two of the most widely documented patterns in population and community ecology. 2. Recently, a general model has been proposed linking the mean abundance, the spatial variance in abundance, and the occupancy of species. A striking feature of this model is that it consists explicitly of the three variables abundance, variance and occupancy, and no extra parameters are involved. However, little is known about how well the model performs. 3. Here, we show that the abundance-variance-occupancy model fits extremely well to data on the abundance, variance and occupancy of a large number of arthropod species in natural forest patches in the Azores, at three spatial extents, and distinguishing between species of different colonization status. Indeed, virtually all variation about the bivariate abundance-occupancy and abundance-variance relationships is effectively explained by the third missing variable (variance in abundance in the case of the abundance-occupancy relationship, and occupancy in the case of the abundance-variance relationship). 4. Introduced species tend to exhibit lower densities, less spatial variance in these densities, and occupy fewer sites than native and endemic species. None the less, they all lie on the same bivariate abundance-occupancy and abundance-variance, and trivariate abundance-variance-occupancy, relationships. 5. Density, spatial variance in density, and occupancy appear to be all the things one needs to know to describe much of the spatial distribution of species.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".