MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3039658593 · doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01168

Tropical forest fragmentation and isolation: Is community decay a random process?

2020· article· en· W3039658593 on OpenAlex
David Luther, W. Justin Cooper, Jared D. Wolfe, Richard O. Bierregaard, Andrew Gonzalez, Thomas Ε. Lovejoy

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Ecology and Conservation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersInstituto Nacional de Pesquisas da AmazôniaSmithsonian Institution
KeywordsNestednessFragmentation (computing)Habitat fragmentationHabitatEcologyHabitat destructionBiologyRainforestCommunity structureTaxonomic rankSpecies diversityTropical rainforestBiodiversity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Habitat destruction and degradation are the leading causes of species declines and extinctions in the world. Human altered landscapes often leave fragments of previously continuous habitat, which may be of significant conservation value. We assessed the effects of habitat fragmentation on the taxonomic diversity, community composition, and nestedness of avian communities before and after fragment isolation at the Biological Dynamics of Forest Fragments Project research site in the Amazon rainforest. Species loss in 10ha and 100ha fragments was significantly different from random taxonomic loss. In addition, after fragment isolation, but not prior to fragmentation, the species in the 10ha fragments were a nested subset of the species in the 100ha fragments. Finally, within the fragments two distinct communities formed, those on the edge of the fragments and those at the interior of the fragments, indicating that edge species did not penetrate the interior portion of the fragments. The controlled isolation of fragments from continuous forest resulted in rapid changes in the taxonomic diversity and species composition where fragment size served as a driver of species assemblages across the landscape. We suggest that future research continue to assess community level adjustments to habitat fragmentation and investigate the drivers behind the non-random loss of taxonomic groups and the nested structure of species composition of smaller fragments into larger ones after habitat fragmentation.

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.

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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.234 · 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