MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3028573400 · doi:10.1002/ecs2.3146

Habitat network topology influences the importance of ecological traps in metapopulations

2020· article· en· W3028573400 on OpenAlexafffund
Christopher B. Edge, Marie‐Josée Fortin

Bibliographic record

VenueEcosphere · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMetapopulationBiological dispersalEcologyHabitatDisturbance (geology)Extinction (optical mineralogy)Extinction probabilityPopulationEcological networkBiologyPopulation sizeEcosystem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The majority of species exist in metapopulations, where populations are linked to one another through dispersal. Disturbances (natural or anthropogenic) are known to affect population vital rates which can reverberate to the metapopulations through dispersal, which is determined by the topology of the habitat network (i.e., the number of patches and their spatial layout). Within a habitat network, disturbed patches become sinks or ecological traps depending on whether individuals avoid or are attracted to the disturbed patch. Ecological traps occur when individuals preferentially disperse to patches that result in low fitness which can have severe consequences for metapopulations. However, the effects of ecological traps should be considered relative to a number of factors, such as the number of disturbed patches, the fitness cost of the disturbance, and dispersal. Further, the relative importance of each factor can vary among different habitat network topologies according to the position and role of the disturbed patches for maintaining the functional connectivity of the entire metapopulation. Using a spatially explicit stochastic stage‐based metapopulation model based on amphibian life history, we investigate how the number of disturbed patches, fitness cost of the disturbance, dispersal rate, and attractiveness of disturbed habitat patches affect the persistence of metapopulations in different habitat network topologies (random, tree, and full). Overall, dispersal, the number of disturbed patches, and the fitness penalty of the disturbance were the most important factors affecting mean metapopulation growth rate, the probability of extinction, and time to extinction. Ecological traps had the largest effect in the tree network topology where the number of links between patches was limited. For all network topologies studied, larger negative effects were observed when disturbed patches were centrally located in the network. Reducing the number and spatial correlation of disturbances is known to be a reliable conservation strategy, we add the importance of considering the location of disturbances within habitat networks and network topology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcosphereSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207