A framework for disentangling ecological mechanisms underlying the island species-area relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The relationship between an island’s size and the number of species on that island—the island species-area relationship (ISAR)—is one of the most well-known patterns in biogeography, and forms the basis for understanding biodiversity loss in response to habitat loss and fragmentation. Nevertheless, there is contention about exactly how to estimate the ISAR, and the influence of the three primary ecological mechanisms—random sampling, disproportionate effects, and heterogeneity— that drive it. Key to this contention is that estimates of the ISAR are often confounded by sampling and estimates of measures (i.e., island-level species richness) that are not diagnostic of potential mechanisms. Here, we advocate a sampling-explicit approach for disentangling the possible ecological mechanisms underlying the ISAR using parameters derived from individual-based rarefaction curves estimated across spatial scales. If the parameters derived from rarefaction curves at each spatial scale show no relationship with island area, we cannot reject the hypothesis that ISARs result only from random sampling. However, if the derived metrics change with island area, we can reject random sampling as the only operating mechanism, and infer that effects beyond sampling (i.e., disproportionate effects and/or heterogeneity) are also operating. Finally, if parameters indicative of within-island spatial variation in species composition (i.e., β-diversity) increase with island area, we can conclude that intra-island compositional heterogeneity plays a role in driving the ISAR. We illustrate this approach using representative case studies, including oceanic islands, natural island-like patches, and habitat fragments from formerly continuous habitat, illustrating several combinations of underlying mechanisms. This approach will offer insight into the role of sampling and other processes that underpin the ISAR, providing a more complete understanding of how, and some indication of why, patterns of biodiversity respond to gradients in island area.
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 | 0.024 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".