MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109198016 · doi:10.1890/08-1677.1

Temporal variability and nestedness in California grassland species composition

2009· article· en· W2109198016 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah C. Elmendorf, Susan Harrison

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNestednessForbEcologySpecies richnessGrasslandCommunityGeographyCommunity structureBiologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nestedness occurs when species-poor assemblages contain a subset of the species that occur in more species-rich communities and is a commonly observed pattern in spatial data sets. Examination of nested distribution patterns across time rather than space are rarely conducted, even though they may have important implications for species coexistence. Nested temporal assemblages can occur when most species respond similarly to interannual variation in conditions. In contrast, assemblages might be non-nested when different sets of species occur in different years, either because of different resource requirements or as a result of competitive exclusion. Using eight years of plant occurrence data at 71 sites in California grasslands, we found strong signals of temporal nestedness with most species favored by similar conditions. High-quality years enabled the expansion of both grasses and forbs into locales where they were not found during poor-quality years. Native annual forb, exotic annual forb, and exotic annual grass species richness were all greatest in cool, wet years following hot, dry years. Together, these analyses support the hypothesis that, in the absence of community members that specialize on poor-quality years, interannual environmental variation can cause communities to form nested subsets across time much as they do across space.

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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations58
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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