MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Phylogenetic Signal of Sub-Arctic Beetle Communities

2020· dataset· en· W3049411997 on OpenAlexaffabout
Samantha Majoros, Sarah J. Adamowicz

Bibliographic record

VenueAuthorea · 2020
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhylogenetic treeBiological dispersalEcologyBiologyArcticCommunity structureTaxonSpecies richnessGeographyDemographyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Post-glacial dispersal and colonization processes have shaped community patterns in sub-Arctic regions such as Churchill, Manitoba, Canada. Important questions remain about the species that colonized this area, in particular the role of glacial history and biological traits in governing colonization patterns from refugial and southerly geographic regions. This study quantifies sub-Arctic beetle phylogenetic community structure using the net relatedness index (NRI) and nearest taxon index (NTI); calculated using publicly available data from BOLD; compares patterns across families with different traits (habitat, diet) using standard statistical analysis (ANOVA) as well as phylogenetic generalized least squares (PGLS) using a higher-level beetle phylogeny; and compares phylogenetic community structure in Churchill with a region in southern Canada (Guelph, Ontario). The dominant pattern detected in our study was that aquatic families were much better represented in Churchill compared to terrestrial families, when compared against richness sampled from across Canada and Alaska. Individually, most families showed significant phylogenetic clustering in Churchill. Closely related species were likely found together due to the strong environmental filtering present in Arctic environments. There was no significant difference in phylogenetic structure between Churchill and Guelph, although the trend was towards stronger clustering in the North. Similarly, there was no difference in phylogenetic structure metrics calculated for aquatic vs. terrestrial beetle families, again with a trend towards stronger clustering in water beetles. By contrast, there was a significant relationship between traits and community structure. Predators showed significantly stronger clustering in Churchill compared to other feeding modes, perhaps due to phylogenetic conservatism of their overwintering ability or generalist diet of some clades within families. This study contributes to our understanding of the traits and processes structuring insect biodiversity and macroecological trends in the sub-Arctic.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score0.913

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAuthoreaSame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207