Phenotypic and phylogenetic correlates of geographic range size in<scp>C</scp>anadian freshwater fishes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim We investigated the relationship between geographic range size ( GRS ), longitude and latitude ( R apoport's rule) in C anadian freshwater fishes. We tested hypotheses regarding the phenotypic and phylogenetic determinants of GRS to unravel processes driving the spatial patterns of GRS in C anada. Because GRS is negatively correlated with extinction risk, we also aimed at identifying biological proxies that may be used to predict extinction risks. Location N orth‐ A merica, C anadian S hield. Methods We built a database combining range area, seven ecological traits, and a molecular phylogeny for native C anadian freshwater fishes. We tested latitudinal and longitudinal patterns in GRS by the mean of P earson correlations. We combined phylogenetic generalized least squares (PGLS) models and a model selection procedure to tease apart hypotheses (and hence ecological traits) that best explained GRS in our dataset. PGLS s were also used to explore relationships between ecological traits, phylogeny, and species mid‐range latitude and longitude. Partial regressions were used to determine direct and indirect relationships driving spatial patterns of GRS in C anadian freshwater fishes. Results There was a significant and positive correlation between GRS , latitude and longitude. According to PGLSs , three ecological traits, related to the habitat use, migratory and thermal tolerance hypotheses, were significantly correlated with GRS , mid‐range longitude and mid‐range latitude. Two traits related to locomotion were further related to GRS . There was no phylogenetic effect on GRS (i.e. no phylogenetic conservatism). Partial regressions revealed complex direct and indirect relationships between ecological traits, mid‐range latitude, mid‐range longitude and GRS . Main conclusions Our results show that traits related to the ability to use dispersal corridors, as well as traits directly related to mobility, are useful in understanding biodiversity patterns such as Rapoport's rule. However, because of a weak explanatory power, we conclude that using biological proxies of GRS to predict species at risk of extinction would be premature.
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) | 0.002 | 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".