Crossing the (Wallace) line: local abundance and distribution of mammals across biogeographic barriers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Past and ongoing vertebrate introductions threaten to rearrange ecological communities in the Indo‐Malay Archipelago, one of Earth's most biodiverse regions. But the consequences of these translocations are difficult to predict. We compared local abundance and distributions in four tropical mammal lineages that have crossed from Asia to Wallacea or New Guinea. The local abundance of macaques (Macaca spp.), which naturally crossed Wallace's Line, was higher in Sulawesi (east of the line; mean = 3.7 individuals per camera station, 95% CI = 2.2: 5.1) than in Borneo (west of the line; mean = 1.1, CI = 0.8: 1.4), but the local abundance of Malay civets (Viverra tangalunga), Rusa deer, and Sus pigs was similar in their native ranges and where they had been introduced by humans east of Wallace's Line. Proximity to rivers increased Malay Civet local abundance and decreased the local abundance of pigs in parts of their introduced ranges (Maluku and New Guinea, respectively), while having no effect on local abundance in their native ranges (Borneo) or other areas where they have been introduced (Sulawesi). That local abundance was higher east of Wallace's Line in just one of four mammal lineages is consistent with findings from plant invasions, where most species have similar abundance in their native and introduced ranges. However, species’ ecology may change as they enter new communities, for example, their patterns of abundance at local scales. This could make it difficult to predict community structure in the face of ongoing species introductions.
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".