MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3136984675 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2020-0372

Mixed evidence for biotic homogenization of Southern Appalachian fish communities

2021· article· en· W3136984675 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kelly Petersen, Mary C. Freeman, Joseph E. Kirsch, William O. McLarney, Mark C. Scott, Seth J. Wenger

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSpecies richnessHomogenization (climate)EcologyBiodiversityBeta diversityHabitatRelative species abundanceGeographyEndemismWatershedSpecies diversityIntroduced speciesEcosystemCosmopolitan distributionBiologyAbundance (ecology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anthropogenic impacts on the landscape can drive biotic homogenization whereby distinct biological communities become more similar to one another over time. Land-use change in the Southern Appalachian region of the United States is expected to result in homogenization of the highly diverse freshwater fish communities as in-stream habitat alterations favor widespread cosmopolitan species at the expense of more narrowly distributed highland endemic species. We compiled four datasets spanning 25 years to (1) evaluate the effects of environmental factors on relative abundance and richness of highland endemic vs. cosmopolitan species in this region and (2) test for taxonomic homogenization, measured as a change in beta diversity over time. We found that several environmental factors differentially affected highland endemic and cosmopolitan species, with the proportion of forested land cover in a watershed most strongly predicting higher relative abundance and richness of highland endemic species. Our analysis of beta diversity change, however, shows mixed evidence of taxonomic homogenization, depending on how common species are weighted. Shifts in community composition, with or without homogenization, may warrant attention in biodiversity conservation planning.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→