Bioregions are predominantly climatic for fishes of northern lakes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim Recurrent species assemblages integrate important biotic interactions and joint responses to environmental and spatial filters that enable local coexistence. Here, we applied a bipartite (site–species) network approach to develop a natural typology of lakes sharing distinct fish faunas and provide a detailed, hierarchical view of their bioregions. We then compared the roles of key biogeographical factors to evaluate alternative hypotheses about how fish communities are assembled from the regional species pool. Location Ontario, Canada and the Upper Midwest, USA. Time period 1957–2017. Major taxa studied Freshwater fishes. Methods Bipartite modularity analysis was performed on 90 taxa from 10,016 inland lakes in the Southwestern Hudson Bay, Mississippi River and St. Lawrence River drainages, uncovering bioregionalization of North American fishes at a large, subcontinental scale. We then used a latent variable approach, pairing non‐metric partial least‐squares structural equation modelling with multiple logistic regression, to show differences in the biogeographical templates of each type of community. Indicators of contemporary and historical connectivity, climate and habitat constructs were estimated using a geographical information system. Results Fish assemblages reflected broad, overlapping patterns of postglacial colonization, climate and geological setting, but community differentiation was most linked to temperature, precipitation and, for certain groups, lake area and water quality. Bioregions were also marked by non‐native species, showing broad‐scale impacts of introductions to the Great Lakes and surrounding basins. Main conclusions The dominant effects of climate across broad spatial gradients indicate differing sensitivities of fish communities to rapidly accelerating climate change and opportunities for targeted conservation strategies. By assessing biological variation at the level of recurrent assemblages, we accounted for the non‐stationarity of macroecological processes structuring different sets of species on the landscape and offer novel inference on the assembly of inland fish communities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".