A GLOBAL EVALUATION OF METABOLIC THEORY AS AN EXPLANATION FOR TERRESTRIAL SPECIES RICHNESS GRADIENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compiled 46 broadscale data sets of species richness for a wide range of terrestrial plant, invertebrate, and ectothermic vertebrate groups in all parts of the world to test the ability of metabolic theory to account for observed diversity gradients. The theory makes two related predictions: (1) In-transformed richness is linearly associated with a linear, inverse transformation of annual temperature, and (2) the slope of the relationship is near -0.65. Of the 46 data sets, 14 had no significant relationship; of the remaining 32, nine were linear, meeting prediction 1. Model I (ordinary least squares, OLS) and model II (reduced major axis, RMA) regressions then tested the linear slopes against prediction 2. In the 23 data sets having nonlinear relationships between richness and temperature, split-line regression divided the data into linear components, and regressions were done on each component to test prediction 2 for subsets of the data. Of the 46 data sets analyzed in their entirety using OLS regression, one was consistent with metabolic theory (meeting both predictions), and one was possibly consistent. Using RMA regression, no data sets were consistent. Of 67 analyses of prediction 2 using OLS regression on all linear data sets and subsets, two were consistent with the prediction, and four were possibly consistent. Using RMA regression, one was consistent (albeit weakly), and four were possibly consistent. We also found that the relationship between richness and temperature is both taxonomically and geographically conditional, and there is no evidence for a universal response of diversity to temperature. Meta-analyses confirmed significant heterogeneity in slopes among data sets, and the combined slopes across studies were significantly lower than the range of slopes predicted by metabolic theory based on both OLS and RMA regressions. We conclude that metabolic theory, as currently formulated, is a poor predictor of observed diversity gradients in most terrestrial systems.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".