MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124813272 · doi:10.1111/geb.12230

Differences in species–area relationships among the major lineages of land plants: a macroecological perspective

2014· article· en· W2124813272 on OpenAlexaff
Jairo Patiño, Patrick Weigelt, François Guilhaumon, Holger Kreft, Kostas A. Triantis, Agustín Naranjo Cigala, Péter Sólymos, Alain Vanderpoorten

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Ecology and Biogeography · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsAlberta Biodiversity Monitoring InstituteUniversity of Alberta
FundersFonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRSDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftEuropean Commission
KeywordsBiomeTaxonSpecies richnessEcologyMacroecologyBiological dispersalRange (aeronautics)GeographyLineage (genetic)BiologyEcosystemPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aim Although the increase in species richness with increasing area is considered one of the few laws in ecology, the role of environmental and taxon‐specific features in shaping species–area relationships ( SAR s) remains controversial. Using 421 land‐plant floras covering continents, continental islands and oceanic islands, we investigate whether variations in SAR parameters can be interpreted in terms of differences among lineages in speciation mode and dispersal capacities ( TAXON ), or of geological history and geographical isolation between continents and islands ( GEO ). Location Global. Methods Linear mixed‐effects models describing variation in SARs , depending on the factors GEO and TAXON and controlling for differences between realms ( REALM ) and biomes ( BIOME ). Results The best random‐effect structure included both random slopes and random intercepts for GEO , TAXON , REALM and BIOME . This accounted for 77% of the total variation in species richness, substantially more than the 27% statistically explained by the model with fixed effects only (i.e. the simple SAR ). The slopes of the SARs were higher for oceanic islands than for continental islands and continents, and higher in spermatophytes than in pteridophytes and bryophytes. The intercepts largely exhibited the reverse trend. TAXON was included in best‐fit models restricted to oceanic and continental islands, but not continents. Analysing each plant lineage separately, the intercept of GEO was only included in the random structure of spermatophytes. Main conclusions SAR parameters varied considerably depending on geological history and taxon‐specific traits. Such differences in SAR s among land plants challenge the neutral theory that the accumulation of species richness on islands is controlled exclusively by extrinsic factors. Taxon‐specific differences in SAR s were, however, confounded by interactions with geological history and geographical isolation. This highlights the importance of applying integrative frameworks that take both environmental context and taxonomic idiosyncrasies into account in SAR analyses.

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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.212
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations75
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Ecology and BiogeographySame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207