MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901733266 · doi:10.1111/ele.13188

Environmental filtering explains a U‐shape latitudinal pattern in regional β‐deviation for eastern North American trees

2018· letter· en· W2901733266 on OpenAlexafffund
Dingliang Xing, Fangliang He

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology Letters · 2018
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicTree-ring climate responses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEcologyGeographyPhysical geographyEnvironmental scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The underlying drivers of β-diversity along latitudinal gradients have been unclear. Previous studies have focused on β-diversities calculated at a local scale and shed limited light on regional β-diversity. We tested the much-debated effects of range size vs. environmental filtering on the β-gradient using data from the US Forest Inventory Analysis Program. We showed that the drivers of the β-gradient were scale dependent. At the local scale species spatial patterns contributed little to the β-gradient, whereas at the regional scale spatial patterns dominated the gradient and a U-shape latitudinal relationship for the standardised β-diversity deviation was revealed. The relationship can be explained by spatial variation in climate and soil texture, thus supporting the environmental filtering hypothesis. But it is inconsistent with Rapoport's rule about the effect of range size on β-gradient. These results resolve the debate on whether species spatial distributions contribute to β-gradient and attest the importance of environmental filtering in determining regional β-diversity.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 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

Citations58
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology LettersSame topicTree-ring climate responsesFrench-language works237,207