MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109987992 · doi:10.1086/368223

A Globally Consistent Richness‐Climate Relationship for Angiosperms

2003· article· en· W2109987992 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony P. Francis, David J. Currie

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Naturalist · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpecies richnessBody size and species richnessEcologyBiodiversityBiological dispersalClimate changeEvapotranspirationSpatial variabilitySpatial ecologyGeographyBiologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Species richness, the simplest index of biodiversity, varies greatly over broad spatial scales. Richness-climate relationships often account for >80% of the spatial variance in richness. However, it has been suggested that richness-climate relationships differ significantly among geographic regions and that there is no globally consistent relationship. This study investigated the global patterns of species and family richness of angiosperms in relation to climate. We found that models relating angiosperm richness to mean annual temperature, annual water deficit, and their interaction or models relating richness to annual potential evapotranspiration and water deficit are both globally consistent and very strong and are independent of the diverse evolutionary histories and functional assemblages of plants in different parts of the world. Thus, effects of other factors such as evolutionary history, postglacial dispersal, soil nutrients, topography, or other climatic variables either must be quite minor over broad scales (because there is little residual variation left to explain) or they must be strongly collinear with global patterns of climate. The correlations shown here must be predicted by any successful hypothesis of mechanisms controlling richness patterns.

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)0.003
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 score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations587
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American NaturalistSame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207