Using climate, energy, and spatial-based hypotheses to interpret macroecological patterns of North America chelonians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our study investigates how factors, such as latitude, productivity, and several environmental variables, influence contemporary patterns of the species richness in North American turtles. In particular, we test several hypotheses explaining broad-scale species richness patterns on several species richness data sets: (i) total turtles, (ii) freshwater turtles only, (iii) aquatic turtles, (iv) terrestrial turtles only, (v) Emydidae, and (vi) Kinosternidae. In addition to spatial data, we used a combination of 25 abiotic variables in spatial regression models to predict species richness patterns. Our results provide support for multiple hypotheses related to broad-scale patterns of species richness, and in particular, hypotheses related to climate, productivity, water availability, topography, and latitude. In general, species richness patterns were positively associated with temperature, precipitation, diversity of streams, coefficient of variation of elevation, and net primary productivity. We also found that North America turtles follow the general latitudinal diversity gradient pattern (i.e., increasing species richness towards equator) by exhibiting a negative association with latitude. Because of the incongruent results among our six data sets, our study highlights the importance of considering phylogenetic constraints and guilds when interpreting species richness patterns, especially for taxonomic groups that occupy a myriad of habitats.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".