Changing importance of habitat structure across multiple spatial scales for three species of insects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".