MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2773682428 · doi:10.1111/jbi.13112

Do seasonal species assemblages differ in their biogeography? Evidence from the spatial structure of bird communities on land‐bridge islands

2017· article· en· W2773682428 on OpenAlexaff
Chuanwu Chen, Marcel Holyoak, Xingfeng Si, Yanping Wang, Ping Ding

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biogeography · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersDivision of Environmental BiologyChina Scholarship CouncilNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsNestednessSpecies richnessBeta diversityEcologyNull modelBiogeographyGamma diversityHabitatInsular biogeographyGeographyAlpha diversityTransectSpecies diversityBiodiversityBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aim We tested the effects of season and migratory status (residents‐versus‐seasonal migrants) on island biogeography of bird assemblages through partitioning beta diversity into richness and turnover components and community nestedness metrics. We predicted that total beta diversity, the richness component of beta diversity and community nestedness will be lower for bird assemblages in winter than in summer, and lowest of all for winter visitors. These predictions were derived from published ideas about resource availability, movement and habitat choice in birds in different seasons. Location Thousand Island Lake, China. Methods Bird species were sampled using line transects on 36 islands during five breeding and winter seasons (2009−2014). Birds were grouped into assemblages of winter residents, winter visitors and summer residents. Associations between beta diversity partitioning, island area, isolation and habitat richness were tested using partial Mantel correlations. We complemented these tests with measures of nestedness and null model approaches. Results Contrary to expectation, beta diversity, nestedness and difference of beta diversity or its components from null models were higher for winter residents than either summer resident or winter visitor assemblages. As predicted, winter visitors showed little association with habitat richness, and beta diversity was rarely different from null communities. Summer residents had the highest correlations of beta diversity components with habitat richness, but showed the lowest level of total beta diversity, a low richness component and were anti‐nested (less nested than random). Main conclusions Substantial differences were found in the biogeography of winter‐versus‐summer residents, and seasonal visitor (migratory)‐versus‐resident bird assemblages, which match expectations derived from bird biology and population ecology. Summer residents highlighted the role of habitat‐related niche differences, whereas winter residents showed area‐related selective extinction. By contrast, winter visitors appeared to be more randomly distributed.

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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of BiogeographySame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207