Remotely sensed habitat diversity predicts butterfly species richness and community similarity in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although there is no shortage of potential explanations for the large-scale patterns of biological diversity, the hypothesis that energy-related factors are the primary determinants is perhaps most extensively supported, especially in cold-temperate regions. By using unusually high-resolution biodiversity and environmental data that have not previously been available, we demonstrate that habitat heterogeneity, as measured by remotely sensed land cover variation, explains Canadian butterfly richness better than any energy-related variable we measured across spatial scales. Although species-richness predictability declines with progressively smaller quadrat sizes, as expected, we demonstrate that most variability (>90%) in butterfly richness may be explained by habitat heterogeneity with secondary contributions from climatic energy. We also find that patterns of community similarity across Canada are strongly related to patterns of habitat composition but not to differences in energy-related factors. Energy should still be considered significant but its main role may be through its effects on within-habitat diversity and perhaps, indirectly, on the sorts of habitats that may be found in a region. Effects of sampling intensity and spatial autocorrelation do not alter our findings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".