MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Changing importance of habitat structure across multiple spatial scales for three species of insects

2003· article· en· W2113757153 on OpenAlexafffund
Meg A. Krawchuk, Philip D. Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueOikos · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaParks Canada
KeywordsHabitatEcologySpatial configurationRange (aeronautics)BiologyAbundance (ecology)Spatial ecologyEcosystemSpatial distributionDistribution (mathematics)Geography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Considerable scientific effort has gone into examining how the spatial structure of habitat influences organism distribution and abundance in both theoretical and applied contexts. An emerging conclusion from these works is that the overall amount of habitat in the landscape matters most for species persistence and that more local attributes of habitat structure such as the size and arrangement of patches is of secondary importance. In this study, we quantify how and when the effects of habitat configuration (patch size and isolation) influence the density of three species of insects (Order: Diptera; Wyeomyia smithii , Metriocnemus knabi , Fletcherimyia fletcheri ) whose larvae are found exclusively in identical habitats (the water‐filled leaves of pitcher plants – Sarracenia purpurea ) in a system that is naturally patchy at multiple spatial scales. We illustrate that relationships with configuration exist regardless of the overall amount of habitat in the broader landscape, and that there are distinct changes in the relationship between insect density and habitat configuration across multiple spatial scales. In general, patch size is more important within the movement range of the individual and isolation is important at larger, aggregation scales. Thus we demonstrate that a) both the amount and configuration of habitat are important attributes of species distribution; b) responses to measures of configuration can be scaled to processes such as movement and c) that hierarchical frameworks extending across very broad scales are essential for understanding how species respond to habitat structure and their role in ecosystem function.

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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations81
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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