Evaluating resilience of tree communities in fragmented landscapes: linking functional response diversity with landscape connectivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim Multiple agents of change increasingly impact functioning of forest ecosystems, for which management plans often ignore how local disturbances and habitat fragmentation jointly operate on ecological resilience at different scales. We examined sensitivity of functional response diversity ( FD ) to variation in species diversity to predict ecological resilience to future disturbances across tree communities and evaluated the role of landscape connectivity in maintaining ecological resilience at the landscape scale. Location Centre‐du‐Quebec, Quebec, Canada. Methods We inventoried private forests and calculated FD and community‐weighted means to determine the extent to which forest‐use intensity affects ecological resilience. Subsequently, we constructed a regional map of FD , from which a spatial network was extracted. To assess potential impacts of fragmentation in maintaining FD at the landscape scale, we examined how the functional connectivity of the landscape, measured by the probability of connectivity ( PC ), varied across a range of maximum seed dispersal distances. Lastly, we evaluated the importance of individual forest fragments in maintaining landscape FD by measuring the connectivity fractions of PC . Results Across tree communities, ecological resilience was low as FD increased sharply with species diversity. Forests with high FD were dominated by species with trait values associated with greater resilience to future anthropogenic disturbances rather than to future climate change. FD was maintained across the landscape by forest fragments acting as intermediate stepping stones in the transfer of seeds. Main conclusions We employed a novel approach based on spatial networks to extend the functional diversity concept from the local to the landscape scale. Our results suggest that seed dispersal over sufficiently large distances can maintain ecological resilience in fragmented landscapes and buffer changes in local‐scale FD . Otherwise, FD is maintained by local processes, meaning that ecological resilience of isolated forest fragments depends strongly on land use type and intensity.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".