MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Species richness–variability relationships in multi‐trophic aquatic microcosms

2006· article· en· W2109745906 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Richard J. Vogt, Tamara N. Romanuk, Jurek Kolasa

Bibliographic record

VenueOikos · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTrophic levelSpecies richnessEcologyCommunityBiologyMesopredator release hypothesisAbundance (ecology)MicrocosmPopulationTrophic cascadeFood webApex predatorEcosystem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While species loss may affect the temporal variability of populations and communities differently in multi‐ versus single‐trophic level communities, the nature of these differences are poorly understood. Here, we report on an experiment where we manipulated species richness of multi‐trophic rock pool invertebrate communities to determine the effects of species richness, S, on the temporal variability of communities, populations, and individual species. As in single‐trophic level studies, temporal variability in community abundance decreased with increasing species richness. However, in contrast to most studies in single‐trophic level systems, temporal variability of populations also decreased as species richness increased. Furthermore, the variability of the constituent populations strongly correlated with variability of community abundance suggesting that, in rock pools, S affects community variability through its stabilizing effect on component populations. Our results suggest that species loss may affect population and community variability differently in multi‐trophic versus single trophic level communities. If this is so, then the mechanisms proposed to underlie the effects of S on community variability in single‐trophic communities may have to be supplemented by those that describe contributions to population stability in order to fully describe the patterns observed in multi‐trophic communities.

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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.928

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)0.0010.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations84
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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