MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

What causes geographical variation in the species–area relationships? A test from forests in China

2011· article· en· W2109164930 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Xiujuan Qiao, Zhiyao Tang, Zehao Shen, Jingyun Fang

Bibliographic record

VenueEcography · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaMcGill UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAltitude (triangle)LatitudeHerbaceous plantSpecies richnessEcologyGeographyPhysical geographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increase of species richness with sampling area and the decrease with latitude and altitude are two of the most frequently studied patterns in biogeography. However, few studies have simultaneously examined these two patterns to investigate how species–area relationships (SAR) vary with latitude and altitude. In this study, we explore the spatial patterns of SAR in forests in China by investigating numbers of species by life form group (trees, shrubs and herbs) in 32 nested plots from 12 mountains ranging from 18.7°N to 51.9°N in latitude and from 300 to 3150 m in altitude. The slopes of the power law SAR ( z ‐values) decreased with increasing latitude for all life forms except herbaceous plants, and also decreased with increasing altitude for all life forms but not for shrubs. Latitude and altitude, as well as their interactions, together explained 65.4, 61.8, 48.9 and 45.3% of the variation in z ‐values for overall species, trees, shrubs and herbaceous plants, respectively. In addition, actual evapotranspiration affected SAR significantly, but this effect varied significantly among life forms. We concluded that there are significant geographical patterns of SAR for China's forests, which is primarily controlled by energy availability.

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 score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.874

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations23
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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