MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2296809470 · doi:10.1139/gen-2015-0192

Can butterflies cope with city life? Butterfly diversity in a young megacity in southern China

2016· article· en· W2296809470 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kong‐Wah Sing, Hui Dong, Wenzhi Wang, John‐James Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversiti Malaya
KeywordsButterflySpecies richnessUrbanizationMegacityGeographyEcologyChinaDiversity (politics)Species diversityBiodiversityBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During 30 years of unprecedented urbanization, plant diversity in Shenzhen, a young megacity in southern China, has increased dramatically. Although strongly associated with plant diversity, butterfly diversity generally declines with urbanization, but this has not been investigated in Shenzhen. Considering the speed of urbanization in Shenzhen and the large number of city parks, we investigated butterfly diversity in Shenzhen parks. We measured butterfly species richness in four microhabitats (groves, hedges, flowerbeds, and unmanaged areas) across 10 parks and examined the relationship with three park variables: park age, park size, and distance from the central business district. Butterflies were identified based on wing morphology and DNA barcoding. We collected 1933 butterflies belonging to 74 species from six families; 20% of the species were considered rare. Butterfly species richness showed weak negative correlations with park age and distance from the central business district, but the positive correlation with park size was statistically significant (p = 0.001). Among microhabitat types, highest species richness was recorded in unmanaged areas. Our findings are consistent with others in suggesting that to promote urban butterfly diversity it is necessary to make parks as large as possible and to set aside areas for limited management. In comparison to neighbouring cities, Shenzhen parks have high butterfly 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 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)0.000
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 score0.282
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.175
Teacher spread0.142 · 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

Citations33
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207