Factors determining beetle richness and composition along an altitudinal gradient in the high mountains of the Sierra Nevada National Park (Spain)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the more common and dramatic patterns observed in species abundance and richness is that imposed by altitude. Many non-exclusive factors have been proposed to explain these altitudinal patterns, including climate, habitat structure, productivity, geographical factors, and historical factors. In this study, we investigated the altitudinal trend of beetle richness and diversity, trying to determine the factors affecting beetle diversity and composition along an altitudinal gradient on a high mountain of the Sierra Nevada National Park (Spain). Beetles were sampled every 15 d for 2 y using pitfall traps at 10 altitudinal sites located between 2000 and 3000 m asl. Against predictions, beetle diversity and the standardized richness indices were not correlated with altitude. Instead, lower richness and diversity values were found at middle altitude in the selected altitudinal range. Although a combination of biotic and abiotic factors satisfactorily explained these richness and diversity values, the main factor was plant diversity, which was correlated with all richness and diversity indices. A second factor was temperature; however, the interaction between beetle richness and temperature was evident only when the effect of plant diversity was removed. Multivariate analysis for species composition showed that 2 factors, plant diversity and shrub cover, explained more than 50% of the variance observed. In summary, our results suggest a strong dependence of beetle species on vegetation structure and diversity, although temperature appears to be a complementary factor determining beetle richness and diversity in the high mountains of the Sierra Nevada National Park.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".