Amphibian assemblages in zero-order basins in the Oregon Coast Range
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Zero-order basins, extending from ridgelines to the initiation of first-order streams, were sampled in the Coast Range of Oregon to (i) characterize spatial distribution patterns of amphibian species and assemblages along longitudinal and lateral gradients, and relative to three geomorphic surfaces (valleys, headmost areas, and slopes); and (ii) develop empirical specieshabitat models. Unmanaged zero-order basins were hotspots for amphibian diversity, with significant differences across geomorphic gradients. Captures of riparian-associated amphibians were higher in valley areas, usually within 2 m of basin center. Upland-associated amphibians were captured two times farther from basin centers than riparian-associated species, but highest densities occurred only 25 m from basin center. The most useful empirical models related captures of individual amphibian species to geomorphic, disturbance, moisture, and overstory variables. Ordination and indicator species analysis characterized geomorphic and other environmental gradients in amphibian assemblages and suggested spatial compression of fluvial habitats and riparian-associated species in zero-order basins, in comparison with downstream areas. Our findings have implications for headwater areas managed to hedge risk to and uncertainty in amphibian persistence, namely in the delineation of zones with species management priority, and in the maintenance of natural fluvial and hillslope disturbance regimes, along with the microhabitat features created by these regimes.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".