Faster movement in nonhabitat matrix promotes range shifts in heterogeneous landscapes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ecologists often assume that range expansion will be fastest in landscapes composed entirely of the highest-quality habitat. Theoretical models, however, show that range expansion depends on both habitat quality and habitat-specific movement rates. Using data from 78 species in 70 studies, we find that animals typically have faster movement through lower-quality environments (73% of published cases). Therefore, if we want to manage landscapes for range expansion, there is a trade-off between promoting movement with nonhostile matrix, and promoting population growth with high-quality habitat. We illustrate how this trade-off plays out with the use of an exemplar species, the Baltimore checkerspot butterfly. For this species, we calculate that the expected rate of range expansion is fastest in landscapes with ~15% high-quality habitat. Behavioral responses to nonhabitat matrix have often been documented in animal populations, but rarely included in empirical predictions of range expansion. Considering movement behavior could change land-planning priorities from focus on high-quality habitat only to integrating high- and low-quality land cover types, and evaluating the costs and benefits of different matrix land covers for range expansion.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".