MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2931037063 · doi:10.1111/ecog.04347

Trophic interactions and abiotic factors drive functional and phylogenetic structure of vertebrate herbivore communities across the Arctic tundra biome

2019· article· en· W2931037063 on OpenAlexaff
James D. M. Speed, Ina Åsnes Skjelbred, Isabel C. Barrio, Michael D. Martin, Dominique Berteaux, C. Guillermo Bueno, Katie S. Christie, Bruce C. Forbes, Jennifer S. Forbey, Daniel Fortin, John‐Arvid Grytnes, Katrine S. Hoset, Nicolas Lecomte, Bryndís Marteinsdóttir, Jesper Bruun Mosbacher, Åshild Ønvik Pedersen, Virve Ravolainen, Eileen C. Rees, Anna Skarin, Natalia Sokolova, Andrew H. Thornhill, Ingunn Tombre, Eeva M. Soininen

Bibliographic record

VenueEcography · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryCenter for Northern StudiesUniversité LavalUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcologyPhylogenetic diversityAbiotic componentBiologyBiomeTundraHerbivoreTrophic levelSpecies richnessBiodiversityBiotic componentPhylogenetic treeEcosystem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Communities are assembled from species that evolve or colonise a given geographic region, and persist in the face of abiotic conditions and interactions with other species. The evolutionary and colonisation histories of communities are characterised by phylogenetic diversity, while functional diversity is indicative of abiotic and biotic conditions. The relationship between functional and phylogenetic diversity infers whether species functional traits are divergent (differing between related species) or convergent (similar among distantly related species). Biotic interactions and abiotic conditions are known to influence macroecological patterns in species richness, but how functional and phylogenetic diversity of guilds vary with biotic factors, and the relative importance of biotic drivers in relation to geographic and abiotic drivers is unknown. In this study, we test whether geographic, abiotic or biotic factors drive biome‐scale spatial patterns of functional and phylogenetic diversity and functional convergence in vertebrate herbivores across the Arctic tundra biome. We found that functional and phylogenetic diversity both peaked in the western North American Arctic, and that spatial patterns in both were best predicted by trophic interactions, namely vegetation productivity and predator diversity, as well as climatic severity. Our results show that both bottom–up and top–down trophic interactions, as well as winter temperatures, drive the functional and phylogenetic structure of Arctic vertebrate herbivore assemblages. This has implications for changing Arctic ecosystems; under future warming and northward movement of predators potential increases in phylogenetic and functional diversity in vertebrate herbivores may occur. Our study thus demonstrates that trophic interactions can determine large‐scale functional and phylogenetic diversity just as strongly as abiotic conditions.

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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations35
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcographySame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207