Fine‐scale structure and cross‐taxon congruence of bird and beetle assemblages in an old‐growth boreal forest mosaic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Aim Nestedness occurs when species present in depauperate sites are subsets of those found in species‐rich sites. The degree of congruence of site nestedness among different assemblages can inform commonalities of mechanisms structuring the assemblages. Well‐nested assemblages may still contain idiosyncratic species and sites that notably depart from the typical assemblage pattern. Idiosyncrasy can arise from multiple processes, including interspecific interactions and habitat preferences, which entail different consequences for species co‐occurrences. We investigate the influence of fine‐scale habitat variation on nestedness and idiosyncrasy patterns of beetle and bird assemblages. We examine community‐level and pairwise species co‐occurrence patterns, and highlight the potential influence of interspecific interactions for assemblage structure. Location Côte‐Nord region of Québec, Canada. Methods We sampled occurrences of ground‐dwelling beetles, flying beetles and birds at sites within old‐growth boreal forest. We examined the nestedness and idiosyncrasy of sites and sought relationships to habitat attributes. We analysed non‐random species co‐occurrence patterns at pairwise and community levels, using null model analysis and five ‘association’ indices. Results All three assemblages were significantly nested. There was limited congruence only between birds and flying beetles whose nestedness was related to canopy openness. For ground‐dwelling beetles, nestedness was related to high stand heterogeneity and sapling density, whereas site idiosyncrasy was inversely related to structural heterogeneity. For birds, site idiosyncrasy increased with canopy cover, and most idiosyncratic species were closed‐canopy specialists. In all assemblages, species idiosyncrasy was positively correlated with the frequency of negative pairwise associations. Species co‐occurrence patterns were non‐random, and for flying beetles and birds positive species pairwise associations dominated. Community‐level co‐occurrence summaries may not, however, always reflect these patterns. Main conclusions Nestedness patterns of different assemblages may not correlate, even when sampled at common locations, because of different responses to local habitat attributes. We found idiosyncrasy patterns indicating opposing habitat preferences, consistent with antagonistic interactions among species within assemblages. Analysis of such patterns can thus suggest the mechanisms generating assemblage structures, with implications for biodiversity conservation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".