How do habitat amount and habitat fragmentation drive time-delayed responses of biodiversity to land-use change?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Land-use change is a root cause of the extinction crisis, but links between habitat change and biodiversity loss are not fully understood. While there is evidence that habitat loss is an important extinction driver, the relevance of habitat fragmentation remains debated. Moreover, while time delays of biodiversity responses to habitat transformation are well-documented, time-delayed effects have been ignored in the habitat loss versus fragmentation debate. Here, using a hierarchical Bayesian multi-species occupancy framework, we systematically tested for time-delayed responses of bird and mammal communities to habitat loss and to habitat fragmentation. We focused on the Argentine Chaco, where deforestation has been widespread recently. We used an extensive field dataset on birds and mammals, along with a time series of annual woodland maps from 1985 to 2016 covering recent and historical habitat transformations. Contemporary habitat amount explained bird and mammal occupancy better than past habitat amount. However, occupancy was affected more by the past rather than recent fragmentation, indicating a time-delayed response to fragmentation. Considering past landscape patterns is therefore crucial for understanding current biodiversity patterns. Not accounting for land-use history ignores the possibility of extinction debt and can thus obscure impacts of fragmentation, potentially explaining contrasting findings of habitat loss versus fragmentation studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".