MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Spatial scaling of species abundance distributions

2011· article· en· W2098644910 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Luís Borda‐de‐Água, Paulo A. V. Borges, Stephen P. Hubbell, Henrique M. Pereira

Bibliographic record

VenueEcography · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaMcGill UniversitySmithsonian InstitutionNational Science Foundation
KeywordsRelative abundance distributionAbundance (ecology)EcologyShrubRelative species abundanceMacroecologySpecies distributionBiodiversityRank abundance curveSpatial distributionSpecies richnessGeographyBiologyHabitatRemote sensing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Species abundance distributions are an essential tool in describing the biodiversity of ecological communities. We now know that their shape changes as a function of the size of area sampled. Here we analyze the scaling properties of species abundance distributions by using the moments of the logarithmically transformed number of individuals. We find that the moments as a function of area size are well fitted by power laws and we use this pattern to estimate the species abundance distribution for areas larger than those sampled. To reconstruct the species abundance distribution from its moments, we use discrete Tchebichef polynomials. We exemplify the method with data on tree and shrub species from a 50 ha plot of tropical rain forest on Barro Colorado Island, Panama. We test the method within the 50 ha plot, and then we extrapolate the species abundance distribution for areas up to 5 km 2 . Our results project that for areas above 50 ha the species abundance distributions have a bimodal shape with a local maximum occurring for the singleton classes and that this maximum increases with sampled area size.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations42
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcographySame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207