Comparative analysis of abundance–occupancy relationships for species at risk at both broad taxonomic and spatial scales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The abundance–occupancy relationship is one of the most well-examined relationships in ecology. At the species level, a positive association has been widely documented. However, until recently, research on the nature of this relationship at broad taxonomic and spatial scales has been limited. Here, we perform a comparative analysis of 12 taxonomic groups across a large spatial scale (Canada), using data on Canadian species at risk: amphibians, arthropods, birds, freshwater fishes, lichens, marine fishes, marine mammals, molluscs, mosses, reptiles, terrestrial mammals, and vascular plants. We find a significantly positive relationship in all taxonomic groups with the exception of freshwater fishes (negative association) and lichens (no association). In general, our work underscores the strength and breadth of this apparently fundamental relationship and provides insight into novel applications for large-scale population dynamics. Further development of species-independent abundance–occupancy relationships, or those of a similar nature, might well prove instrumental in serving as starting points for developing species-independent reference points and recovery strategies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".