Interhemispheric comparison of scale‐dependent spatial variation in the structure of intertidal rocky‐shore communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In rocky intertidal habitats, the pronounced increase in environmental stress with elevation, caused by tides, generates significant vertical variation in community structure. Along coastlines, environmental changes generate horizontal biological variation, which, when measured at large sampling intervals, generally surpasses vertical biological variation. It is unknown, however, how vertical biological variation compares with horizontal biological variation when the latter is measured in environmentally similar habitats. We tested the hypothesis that, for sites experiencing similar environmental conditions along the shore, horizontal biological variation does not surpass vertical biological variation even when horizontal variation is measured at large sampling intervals along the coast. We compared vertical and horizontal variation in intertidal communities by surveying habitats experiencing the same wave exposure on the NW Atlantic and SE Pacific coasts. We measured biological variation based on differences in species richness, occurrence, and abundance between quadrats from low and high elevations (vertical variation) and between quadrats at three horizontal scales of sampling interval on both coasts: local (tens of cm between quadrats), meso‐ (˜100 km between quadrats), and regional (˜200 km between quadrats). We measured biological variation for all species combined, separately for sessile and mobile species, and for the numerically dominant species. The data analyses indicated that horizontal biological variation was never higher than vertical biological variation, not even at the regional scale, providing support for our hypothesis. Overall, our findings suggest that studies comparing spatial scales of biological variation should consider the underlying environmental variation in addition to simply scale alone.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.013 | 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 teacher head, 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".