MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2178015203 · doi:10.2980/i1195-6860-12-1-141.1

Highly nested snail and clam assemblages in boreal lake littorals: Roles of isolation, area, and habitat suitability

2005· article· en· W2178015203 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jani Heino, Timo Muotka

Bibliographic record

VenueEcoscience · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNestednessEcologyHabitatAbiotic componentBiologyFaunaBorealCanonical correspondence analysisRelative species abundanceAbundance (ecology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

:Many ecological assemblages show a nested subset pattern of species distribution, i.e., common species occur in all assemblages, whereas rare species tend to occur in progressively more diverse assemblages. We examined the determinants of nestedness and assemblage composition of lake-dwelling snails and clams in a boreal landscape using nestedness calculator, rank correlation, and canonical correspondence analysis (CCA). Both snail and clam assemblages were highly nested, and the nested subset pattern correlated with an index of isolation and habitat suitability (mainly water chemistry) for snails and with habitat suitability for clams. Habitat suitability and isolation were themselves highly correlated, thus obscuring the detection of their relative importance to nestedness. Yet, it appears that nestedness in this molluscan fauna is due mainly to nested tolerance of abiotic factors. Partial CCA showed that isolation and habitat suitability were almost equally important correlates of species composition for snails, whereas lake area was the key factor related to clam assemblage composition, followed by habitat suitability. It thus appears that while the degree of nestedness in species composition of lake-dwelling clams and snails may be highly correlated with a single variable, the overall pattern of species composition among lakes requires multiple explanatory variables.

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)0.001
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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations25
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcoscienceSame topicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207