MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2762550485 · doi:10.1002/ecs2.1957

Disturbance and diversity in a continental archipelago: a mechanistic framework linking area, height, and exposure

2017· article· en· W2762550485 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher J. Neufeld, Samuel Starko, Kevin C. Burns

Bibliographic record

VenueEcosphere · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal plant biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBamfield Marine Sciences CentreQuest University Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpecies richnessArchipelagoDisturbance (geology)EcologyIntertidal zoneInsular biogeographyGeographyOceanographyEnvironmental scienceGeologyBiologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Species–area relationships ( SAR s) are among the most general patterns in nature. Yet, significant variation in species richness often remains after accounting for area, especially for small islands. One factor thought to influence species richness on small islands is disturbance from the combined influence of tides and waves. Here, we derive a quantitative framework for determining how ocean disturbance impacts island communities, which we then test in plant communities in a temperate island archipelago. We do so by applying some well‐developed techniques honed in the marine intertidal zone but rarely applied to studies on land. By estimating and adjusting for the effect of wave exposure on habitable island area, we dramatically improved the fit of the SAR for small islands, nearly doubling the amount of variation in species richness explained (from 37% to 69%). Our predictions of island occupancy also improved using this method. Our approach predicts that small islands (<100,000 m 2 ) are the most affected by ocean‐borne disturbance. Given that many archipelagos are susceptible to wave disturbance, future studies should consider how ocean‐borne disturbances arising from the matrix might interact with sampling area to influence patterns of species richness on small islands.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations16
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcosphereSame topicMarine and coastal plant biologyFrench-language works237,207