MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3184017506 · doi:10.1111/geb.13345

Determinants of zoogeographical boundaries differ between vertebrate groups

2021· article· en· W3184017506 on OpenAlexaff
Gentile Francesco Ficetola, Florent Mazel, Mattia Falaschi, Silvio Marta, Wilfried Thuiller

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Ecology and Biogeography · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersAgence Nationale de la RechercheBiodiversa+
KeywordsEcologyOrographic liftVertebrateBiogeographyBiologyBiological dispersalFaunaClimate changeGeographyPrecipitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aim Worldwide distribution patterns of living animals are structured in multiple zoogeographical regions, characterized by faunas with homogeneous composition that are separated by sharp boundaries. These zoogeographical regions can differ depending on the considered animal group, probably because they have distinct characteristics such as dispersal, metabolism, or evolutionary history, and thus divergent responses to major biogeographical drivers, such as tectonic movements, abrupt climate transitions and orographic barriers. Here, we tested if the drivers of biogeographical boundaries are different between vertebrate classes with strongly divergent traits and evolutionary history. Location Global. Time period Present. Major taxa studied Amphibians, birds and mammals. Methods We focused on terrestrial biogeographical boundaries, considering multiple potential drivers: spatial heterogeneity of present‐day climate, altitudinal variation, long‐term tectonic movements and past climate change (temperature). We used spatially explicit regression models and geographically weighted regressions to select and quantify the factors explaining the position of the biogeographical boundaries between vertebrate classes. Results For mammals, tectonic movements, abrupt climatic transitions and orographic barriers jointly determined extant biogeographical boundaries, with tectonic movements being the most important. For birds, abrupt climatic transitions played the strongest role, while the effect of orographic barriers was weak. For amphibians, biogeographical boundaries mostly corresponded to areas with abrupt climatic transitions. The strongest transitions of amphibian faunas occur in areas with abrupt shifts of temperature and precipitation regimes. Main conclusions Our analyses confirmed that different drivers have jointly shaped the global vertebrate biogeographical regions, and highlight that taxa with different features show heterogeneous responses across the globe. Eco‐physiological constraints likely increase the importance of spatial heterogeneity of climate, while dispersal limitations magnify the relevance of physical barriers (mountain chains and long‐term tectonic instability). Integrating among‐taxa heterogeneity into analyses thus provides a more complete view of how different processes determine biodiversity variation across the globe.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations32
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Ecology and BiogeographySame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207