MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891115187 · doi:10.1111/gcb.14452

Loss of only the smallest patches will reduce species diversity in most discrete habitat networks

2018· article· en· W2891115187 on OpenAlexafffund
David C. Deane, Fangliang He

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Change Biology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHabitatEcologyBiologyHabitat destructionSpecies diversityRange (aeronautics)Biodiversity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Under many global‐change scenarios, small habitat patches are the most vulnerable to destruction. For example, smaller ponds are at greater risk in a drying climate and their loss would remove any obligate aquatic individuals present. We asked what proportional loss of species diversity from metacommunities comprised of discrete habitat patches should be expected from attrition (complete loss) of only the smallest patches under such a premise. We analyzed 175 published datasets for different taxonomic groups (vertebrates, invertebrates, and plants) and habitat types (islands, habitat islands, and fragments). We simulated the destruction of only the smallest patches to an approximate 20% of total area (range: 15.2%–24.2%) and analyzed species loss. Mean [± 95% CI] species loss was 12.7% [10.8, 14.6], although 18.3% of datasets lost no species. Four broad patterns of species loss were evident, reflecting underlying differences in minimum area requirements and the degree of species turnover among patches. Regression modeling showed species loss increased with greater species turnover among patches (βSIM) and decreased with greater area scaling of diversity (i.e., larger power‐law island species–area relationship exponents). Losses also increased with greater numbers of single‐patch endemics and with increasing proportions of patches destroyed. After accounting for these predictors, neither taxonomic group nor habitat type increased explained variation in species loss. Attrition of the smallest patches removed species in >80% of metacommunities, despite all larger patches and >75% of total area remaining intact. At both 10% and 20% area reduction, median species loss across all datasets was around 50% higher than predicted from methods based on the species–area relationship. We conclude that any mechanism of global change that selectively destroys small habitat patches will lead to imminent extinctions in most discrete metacommunities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations34
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Change BiologySame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207