MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2913414764 · doi:10.1101/528950

Behavior influences range limits and patterns of coexistence across an elevational gradient in tropical bird diversity

2019· preprint· en· W2913414764 on OpenAlexaff
Benjamin G. Freeman, Joseph A. Tobias, Dolph Schluter

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UKLouisiana State University
KeywordsRange (aeronautics)Competition (biology)Interspecific competitionEcologyNicheCoexistence theoryBiologyStorage effectGeographyEvolutionary biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Does competition influence patterns of coexistence between closely related taxa? Here we address this basic question in ecology by analyzing patterns of range overlap between related bird species (“sister pairs”) distributed along a Neotropical elevational gradient. We explicitly contrast the behavioral dimension of interspecific competition (interference competition) with similarity in resource acquisition traits (exploitative competition). We find that behavioral interactions are generally important in setting elevational range limits and preventing coexistence of closely related species. Specifically, close relatives that defend year-round territories tend to live in non-overlapping elevational distributions, while close relatives that do not defend territories tend to broadly overlap in distribution. In contrast, neither similarity in beak morphology nor evolutionary relatedness was associated with patterns of range limitation. Our main result is that interference competition can be an important driver of species ranges at the scale of entire diverse assemblages. Consequently, we suggest that behavioral dimensions of the niche should be more broadly incorporated in macroecological studies.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicPlant and animal studies→French-language works237,207→