MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035400882 · doi:10.5167/uzh-164938

Evolution increases ecosystem temporal stability and recovery from a flood in grassland communities

2018· preprint· en· W3035400882 on OpenAlexaff
Sofia J. van Moorsel, Terhi Hahl, Owen L. Petchey, Anne Ebeling, Nico Eisenhauer, Bernhard Schmid, Cameron Wagg

Bibliographic record

VenueZurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiodiversityEcosystemEcological stabilityDisturbance (geology)EcologyBiomass (ecology)Abiotic componentResistance (ecology)Species richnessContext (archaeology)Environmental sciencePlant communityFlooding (psychology)GrasslandPsychological resilienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding factors that increase ecosystem stability is critical in the face of environmental change. Biodiversity plays a key role in buffering ecosystems against disturbances such as extreme climatic events. The evolution of biological communities within their local environment may also increase ecosystem stability and resilience, but this has yet to be tested. Here, we provide evidence for such evolutionary effects using a long-term grassland biodiversity experiment. Communities of plants with a history of co-occurrence (co-selected communities) were temporally more stable at low diversity than the same communities of plants with no such history (naïve communities). Furthermore, co-selected communities exhibited greater recovery following a major flood, resulting in more stable post-flood productivity. These results demonstrate that community evolution can increase ecosystem stability under normal circumstances and in response to extreme disturbance, but also suggest that high diversity can in part compensate for evolutionary naïvety.

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)0.001
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 score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.943

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)Same topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207