MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057727737 · doi:10.1111/ele.12432

Experimental evidence for the effect of habitat loss on the dynamics of migratory networks

2015· article· en· W2057727737 on OpenAlexafffund
Gustavo S. Betini, Mark Fitzpatrick, D. Ryan Norris

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology Letters · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsHabitatEcologyBiologyHabitat destructionPopulationRange (aeronautics)Population sizePopulation declineDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Migratory animals present a unique challenge for understanding the consequences of habitat loss on population dynamics because individuals are typically distributed over a series of interconnected breeding and non-breeding sites (termed migratory network). Using replicated breeding and non-breeding populations of Drosophila melanogaster and a mathematical model, we investigated three hypotheses to explain how habitat loss influenced the dynamics of populations in networks with different degrees of connectivity between breeding and non-breeding seasons. We found that habitat loss increased the degree of connectivity in the network and influenced population size at sites that were not directly connected to the site where habitat loss occurred. However, connected networks only buffered global population declines at high levels of habitat loss. Our results demonstrate why knowledge of the patterns of connectivity across a species range is critical for predicting the effects of environmental change and provide empirical evidence for why connected migratory networks are commonly found in nature.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology LettersSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207