Functional dispersion of wetland birds, invertebrates, and plants more strongly influenced by hydroperiod than each other
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The relative role of biological and abiotic filters in the assembly of co‐occurring taxa is of broad interest to ecologists. While some authors point to biological interactions (e.g., competition) as the stronger driver of ecological selection, others assert that abiotic conditions are more important because they filter species at the regional level. Because communities influenced by a dominant abiotic filter (e.g., Prairie Pothole Region [PPR] wetlands, each varying in their ponded water permanence) often have strong cross‐taxon relationships, we can study these communities to better understand the relative influence of abiotic versus biotic filters on community structure. Using functional dispersion as our measure of communities, we test six alternate hypotheses about the relative importance of various pathways representing influence of biological and permanence filters on birds, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and wetland plants in the northwest PPR using structural equation modeling. We aimed to understand whether (1) ponded water permanence alone explained functional dispersion; (2) the influence of permanence on functional dispersion was direct or mediated; and (3) abiotic filtering by permanence was stronger than biotic filtering by co‐occurring taxa. The best model suggests that there is a direct influence of permanence on the functional dispersion of each taxonomic group and that both bird and macroinvertebrate functional dispersion are causally related to plant functional dispersion, though for invertebrates, the influence of plants is much less than that of permanence. Thus, the relative importance of wetland permanence and the functional dispersion of co‐occurring taxa depend on which taxon is considered in PPR wetlands.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 teacher head, 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".