MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3080660778 · doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01239

Biotic interactions govern the distribution of coexisting ungulates in the Arctic Archipelago – A case for conservation planning

2020· article· en· W3080660778 on OpenAlex
Deborah A. Jenkins, Nicolas Lecomte, Geoffrey Andrews, Glenn Yannic, James A. Schaefer

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Ecology and Conservation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MonctonTrent University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAbiotic componentEcologyBiotic componentHabitatEnvironmental niche modellingSpecies distributionBiodiversityArcticGeographyEnvironmental scienceEcological nicheBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climate change and biodiversity loss underscore the need for conservation planning, even in remote areas. Species distribution models (SDMs) can help identify critical habitat for reserve design and selection, and have quickly advanced to the fore of ecological inquiry. Such models are typically dominated by abiotic factors, following the Eltonian Noise Hypothesis (ENH) that physical features set the limits of species distributions. Nevertheless, recent studies challenge this notion and highlight the importance of biotic interactions. Resolving this discrepancy could have significant implications for conservation and ecological understanding. To test these ideas, we built distribution models for two large herbivores, muskoxen (Ovibos muschatus) and Peary caribou (Rangifer tarandus pearyi), systematically observed across a vast spatial extent – 65 islands spanning 800,000 km2 in the Canadian High Arctic. To test the ENH we fit SDMs with two sets of predictors: (1) abiotic only (i.e. topographic, climatic) and (2) abiotic + biotic (i.e. vegetation communities, distance-to-heterospecifics). We evaluated these models and spatially estimated habitat suitability for each species. We found both sets of models had good predictive ability, although biotic variables (i.e. proportion of grass-lichen-moss) improved model performance and substantially narrowed areas of high habitat suitability. Niche overlap between caribou and muskoxen was moderate and highly suitable areas were spatially disjunct between species and largely outside protected areas. These results fail to support the ENH. Our study implies that biotic features, although often overlooked, may be important to the performance of SDMs and vital in identifying priority areas for conservation. For these large herbivores, reflecting trophic interactions in SDMs was essential when estimating areas of conservation value. Our approach helps prepare the way for improved projections regarding the prospects for wildlife while laying the foundation for biologically relevant protected areas.

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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.240 · 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