Habitat amount, habitat heterogeneity, and their effects on arthropod species diversity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Not all studies have empirically supported the model that predicts a positive relationship between habitat heterogeneity and biodiversity. We hypothesized that these different results stem from the methods used to assess habitat heterogeneity; many studies used variables that are somewhat correlated in nature and measure 2 different features of the environment: a) the number of structure types (habitat heterogeneity) and b) the number of structures, disregarding their types (habitat amount). We tested this hypothesis with a single experiment that assigned orthogonal values of habitat heterogeneity and habitat amount to artificial environments located on the floor of a forest remnant. We statistically controlled the number of individuals in each environment to prevent a random sample effect. We used the number of arthropod morphospecies present in the environments after 60 d as our dependent variable. The results indicate that habitat heterogeneity had no significant effect on species richness, while habitat amount showed a positive effect when the number of individuals was not controlled. Neither habitat heterogeneity nor habitat amount affected species richness when the number of individuals was controlled. We conclude that conflicting results in previous tests of the heterogeneity model could stem from conceptual and methodological problems in experimental conception. We suggest that further studies distinguish between heterogeneity and area effects, design proper controls for different effects, and consider the spatial scale of the ecological processes that influence species diversity.
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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".