Positive Interspecific Relationship between Temporal Occurrence and Abundance in Insects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most studied macroecological patterns is the interspecific abundance-occupancy relationship, which relates species distribution and abundance across space. Interspecific relationships between temporal distribution and abundance, however, remain largely unexplored. Using data for a natural assemblage of tabanid flies measured daily during spring and summer in Nova Scotia, we found that temporal occurrence (proportion of sampling dates in which a species occurred in an experimental trap) was positively related to temporal mean abundance (number of individuals collected for a species during the study period divided by the total number of sampling dates). Moreover, two models that often describe spatial abundance-occupancy relationships well, the He-Gaston and negative binomial models, explained a high amount of the variation in our temporal data. As for the spatial abundance-occupancy relationship, the (temporal) aggregation parameter, k, emerged as an important component of the hereby named interspecific temporal abundance-occurrence relationship. This may be another case in which a macroecological pattern shows similarities across space and time, and it deserves further research because it may improve our ability to forecast colonization dynamics and biological impacts.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".