MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2524724310 · doi:10.1111/geb.12509

A global analysis of traits predicting species sensitivity to habitat fragmentation

2016· article· en· W2524724310 on OpenAlexaff
Douglas A. Keinath, Daniel F. Doak, Karen E. Hodges, Laura R. Prugh, William F. Fagan, Çağan H. Şekercioğlu, Stuart H. M. Buchart, Matthew J. Kauffman

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Ecology and Biogeography · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHabitat fragmentationEcologyFragmentation (computing)HabitatHabitat destructionBiologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aim Elucidating patterns in species responses to habitat fragmentation is an important focus of ecology and conservation, but studies are often geographically restricted, taxonomically narrow or use indirect measures of species vulnerability. We investigated predictors of species presence after fragmentation using data from studies around the world that included all four terrestrial vertebrate classes, thus allowing direct inter‐taxonomic comparison. Location World‐wide. Methods We used generalized linear mixed‐effect models in an information theoretic framework to assess the factors that explained species presence in remnant habitat patches (3342 patches; 1559 species, mostly birds; and 65,695 records of patch‐specific presence–absence). We developed a novel metric of fragmentation sensitivity, defined as the maximum rate of change in probability of presence with changing patch size (‘Peak Change’), to distinguish between general rarity on the landscape and sensitivity to fragmentation per se. Results Size of remnant habitat patches was the most important driver of species presence. Across all classes, habitat specialists, carnivores and larger species had a lower probability of presence, and those effects were substantially modified by interactions. Sensitivity to fragmentation (measured by Peak Change) was influenced primarily by habitat type and specialization, but also by fecundity, life span and body mass. Reptiles were more sensitive than other classes. Grassland species had a lower probability of presence, though sample size was relatively small, but forest and shrubland species were more sensitive. Main conclusions Habitat relationships were more important than life‐history characteristics in predicting the effects of fragmentation. Habitat specialization increased sensitivity to fragmentation and interacted with class and habitat type; forest specialists and habitat‐specific reptiles were particularly sensitive to fragmentation. Our results suggest that when conservationists are faced with disturbances that could fragment habitat they should pay particular attention to specialists, particularly reptiles. Further, our results highlight that the probability of presence in fragmented landscapes and true sensitivity to fragmentation are predicted by different factors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations281
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Ecology and BiogeographySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207