Endemism in native floras of California’s Channel Islands correlated with seasonal patterns of aeolian processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study revisits the hypothesis that dispersal to California’s Channel Islands follows a stepping-stone pattern from mainland California, based on earlier work indicating that the floras conform to classic island-biogeographic expectations. A re-examination of data incorporating the directions of prevailing and seasonal Santa Ana winds greatly strengthens the power of the model to explain levels of endemism in the Channel Island floras, and suggests the importance of aoelian processes for island colonization. Regression analysis of percent endemism in the native flora against distances measured along the axis of winds improves the r2 from 0.099 to 0.482. The endemic species that flower in the dry season as a percent of the native flora of the islands is also strongly related to these revised source distances (r2 = 0.665). Furthermore, the native floras of the southern islands are nested subsets of the floras of the northern islands, and angiosperm flowering peaks during the dry season, providing seed for seasonally based dispersal. These results suggest that the northern islands may have served as a source of colonists for the southern islands, and that the pattern of aeolian inputs into an island system should be considered in other plant biogeographic studies.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".