MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2547604611 · doi:10.1111/ecog.02535

Experimental evidence does not support the Habitat Amount Hypothesis

2016· article· en· W2547604611 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEcography · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSpecies richnessHabitatEcologyHabitat fragmentationFragmentation (computing)Habitat destructionLandscape ecologyGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For a half century, habitat configuration – the arrangement of habitat patches within a landscape – has been central to theories of landscape ecology, population dynamics, and community assembly, in addition to conservation strategies. A recent hypothesis advanced by Fahrig (2013) would, if supported, greatly diminish the relevance of habitat configuration as a predictor of diversity. The Habitat Amount Hypothesis posits that the sample area effect overrides patch size and patch isolation effects of habitat fragmentation on species richness. It predicts that the amount of habitat in a local landscape, regardless of configuration, is the main landscape‐level determinant of species richness. If habitat amount is indeed the major, landscape‐level driver of species richness, the slopes of the species–area relationship (SAR) for otherwise similar fragmented and unfragmented landscapes should be indistinguishable. We tested the Habitat Amount Hypothesis with data from two replicated and controlled habitat fragmentation experiments that disentangle the effects of habitat amount and configuration. One experiment provided time‐series data on plant species richness and the other on micro‐arthropod species richness. We found that, relative to less fragmented habitats, the SARs for fragmented habitats have significantly higher slopes and that the magnitude of the difference in slopes increased over time. Relatively more species were lost in smaller areas when fragments were more isolated. In both experiments, the proportion of species lost due to increased habitat fragmentation was nearly identical to the proportion lost due to reduced habitat amount. Our results provide a direct and experimentally derived refutation of the Habitat Amount Hypothesis, supporting the long‐held view that in addition to area, patch isolation and configuration are important determinants of species richness. Differences in species richness between fragmented and non‐fragmented habitats increase over time, demonstrating that long‐term studies are needed to understand the effects of fragmentation, above and beyond the amount of habitat lost.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.221 · 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