Geographic shifts in the effects of habitat size on trophic structure and decomposition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Habitat size is known to affect community structure and ecosystem function, but few studies have examined the underlying mechanisms over sufficient size gradients or in enough geographic contexts to determine their generality. Our goal in this study was to determine if the relationship between habitat size and leaf decomposition varied across geographic sites, and which factors may be driving the differences. We conducted replicated observations in a coastal forest in Brazil, and in rainforests in Costa Rica and Puerto Rico. We used leaf litter decomposition and macroinvertebrate composition in bromeliad phytotelmata of varying sizes to determine the relationships between habitat size, trophic structure and decomposition over a wide geographical range. We experimentally disentangled the effects of site and litter quality by quantifying invertebrate control of decomposition of a native and a transplanted litter type within one site. We found that the relationship between bromeliad size and decomposition rates differed among study sites. In rainforests in Costa Rica and Puerto Rico, decomposition was strongly linked to macroinvertebrate trophic structure, which varies with bromeliad size, driving strong bromeliad size‐decomposition relationships. However, in Brazil there was no relationship between bromeliad size and decomposition. Our manipulative experiment suggests that within coastal forest in Brazil, the poor quality of native litter resulted in little invertebrate control of decomposition. Furthermore, the key detritivore in this site builds a predator‐resistant case, which likely prevented effects of bromeliad size on trophic structure from being transmitted to decomposition even when litter quality was increased. We conclude that differences in both leaf litter quality and macroinvertebrate traits among sites determine the link between decomposition and macroinvertebrates, and consequently the decomposition‐bromeliad size relationship. These results show that the response of decomposition to habitat size is context‐dependent, and depends on which component of the food web is the main driver of the function.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".