Influence of phylogenetic scale on the relationships of taxonomic and phylogenetic turnovers with environment for angiosperms in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We aim to assess the influence of phylogenetic scale on the relationships of taxonomic and phylogenetic turnovers with environment for angiosperms in China. Specifically, we quantify the effects of contemporary climate on β‐diversity at different phylogenetic scales representing different evolutionary depths of angiosperms. We sampled a latitudinal gradient and a longitudinal gradient of angiosperm assemblages across China (each ≥3400 km). Species composition in each assemblage was documented. Three metrics of β‐diversity (βsim.tax measuring taxonomic β‐diversity; βsim.phy and Dpw measuring tip‐ and basal‐weighted phylogenetic β‐diversity, respectively) were quantified among assemblages at sequential depths in the evolutionary history of angiosperms from the tips to deeper branches. This was done by slicing the angiosperm phylogenetic tree at six evolutionary depths (0, 15, 30, 45, 60, and 75 million years ago). β‐diversity at each evolutionary depth was related to geographic and climatic distances between assemblages. In general, the relationship between β‐diversity and climatic distance decreased from shallow to deep evolutionary time slice for all the three metrics. The slopes of the decreasing trends for βsim.tax and βsim.phy were much steeper for the latitudinal gradient than for the longitudinal gradient. The decreasing trend of the strength of the relationship was monotonic in all cases except for Dpw across the longitudinal gradient. Geographic distance between assemblages explained little variation in β‐diversity that was not explained by climatic distance. Our study shows that the strength of the relationship between β‐diversity and climatic distance decreases conspicuously from shallow to deep evolutionary depth for the latitudinal gradient, but this decreasing trend is less steep for the longitudinal gradient than for the latitudinal gradient, which likely reflects the influence of historical processes (e.g., the collision of the Indian plate with the Eurasian plate) on β‐diversity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".