MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3047042290 · doi:10.1111/geb.13156

Methods and approaches to advance soil macroecology

2020· article· en· W3047042290 on OpenAlexaff
Hannah J. White, Lupe León‐Sánchez, Victoria J. Burton, Erin K. Cameron, Tancredi Caruso, Luís Cunha, Tara Dirilgen, Stephanie D. Jurburg, Ruth Kelly, Deepak Kumaresan, Raúl Ochoa‐Hueso, Alejandro Ordóñez, Helen R. P. Phillips, Iván Prieto, Olaf Schmidt, Paul Caplat

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Ecology and Biogeography · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
FundersFP7 People: Marie-Curie ActionsH2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie ActionsAcademy of FinlandHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeNatural Environment Research CouncilRoyal Entomological SocietyScience Foundation IrelandBritish Ecological SocietySight Research UKEcological Society of AmericaSeventh Framework ProgrammeDepartment for the Economy
KeywordsMacroecologyEcologyBiodiversityTemporal scalesEcosystemSoil biologyEnvironmental scienceBiologySoil water

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Motivation and aim Soil biodiversity is central to ecosystem function and services. It represents most of terrestrial biodiversity and at least a quarter of all biodiversity on Earth. Yet, research into broad, generalizable spatial and temporal patterns of soil biota has been limited compared to aboveground systems due to complexities of the soil system. We review the literature and identify key considerations necessary to expand soil macroecology beyond the recent surge of global maps of soil taxa, so that we can gain greater insight into the mechanisms and processes shaping soil biodiversity. We focus primarily on three groups of soil taxa (earthworms, mycorrhizal fungi and soil bacteria) that represent a range of body sizes and ecologies, and, therefore, interact with their environment at different spatial scales. Results The complexities of soil, including fine‐scale heterogeneity, 3‐D habitat structure, difficulties with taxonomic delimitation, and the wide‐ranging ecologies of its inhabitants, require the classical macroecological toolbox to be expanded to consider novel sampling, molecular identification, functional approaches, environmental variables, and modelling techniques. Main conclusions Soil provides a complex system within which to apply macroecological research, yet, it is this property that itself makes soil macroecology a field ripe for innovative methodologies and approaches. To achieve this, soil‐specific data, spatio‐temporal, biotic, and abiotic considerations are necessary at all stages of research, from sampling design to statistical analyses. Insights into whole ecosystems and new approaches to link genes, functions and diversity across spatial and temporal scales, alongside methodologies already applied in aboveground macroecology, invasion ecology and aquatic ecology, will facilitate the investigation of macroecological processes in soil biota, which is key to understanding the link between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in terrestrial ecosystems.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0110.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations47
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Ecology and BiogeographySame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207