MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206479720 · doi:10.1111/ele.13941

Traits affecting nutrient recycling by mobile consumers can explain coexistence and spatially heterogeneous trophic regulation across a meta‐ecosystem

2021· letter· en· W4206479720 on OpenAlexafffund
Tianna Peller, Justin N. Marleau, Frédéric Guichard

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology Letters · 2021
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEcosystemTrophic levelEcologyBiodiversityCompetition (biology)Spatial heterogeneityNutrientEnvironmental scienceNutrient cycleBiologyPrimary producersEcosystem services

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ecosystems are linked through spatial flows of organisms and nutrients that impact their biodiversity and regulation. Theory has predominantly studied passive nutrient flows that occur independently of organism movement. Mobile organisms, however, commonly drive nutrient flows across ecosystems through nutrient recycling. Using a meta-ecosystem model where consumers move between ecosystems, we study how consumer recycling and traits related to feeding and sheltering preferences affect species diversity and trophic regulation. We show local effects of recycling can cascade across space, yielding spatially heterogeneous top-down and bottom-up effects. Consumer traits impact the direction and magnitude of these effects by enabling recycling to favour a single ecosystem. Recycling further modifies outcomes of competition between consumer species by creating a positive feedback on the production of one competitor. Our findings suggest spatial interactions between feeding and recycling activities of organisms are key to predicting biodiversity and ecosystem functioning across spatial scales.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0120.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.006

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations28
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology LettersSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207