Floral diversity increases butterfly diversity in a multitrophic metacommunity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impact of multitrophic interactions on metacommunity structure, despite extensive theory and modeling/manipulative studies, has remained largely unexplored within naturally occurring metacommunities. We investigated the impacts of mutualistic partners and predators on a butterfly metacommunity, as well as the impacts that local and landscape characteristics have across three trophic levels: flowering plants, butterflies, and butterfly predators. Using data for butterfly diversity/richness, flowering plant diversity/richness, and butterfly predation (on clay butterfly models) across 15 grassland sites, we posed 3 questions. (1) How do mutualist metacommunity structure, predation pressure, and local and regional habitat characteristics affect butterfly metacommunity structure? (2) How do local and regional habitat characteristics affect flowering plant metacommunity structure? (3) How do local and regional habitat characteristics affect predation pressure? Floral diversity and richness had a positive effect on butterfly diversity and richness (Question 1). Site size positively affected floral diversity and richness (Question 2), and through this relationship site size had an indirect positive effect on butterfly diversity and richness (Question 1). In contrast to previous work, no other variables impacted butterfly diversity/richness. This result was particularly surprising for predation pressure: Our results suggest that within our study system, butterfly community diversity and richness are not strongly impacted by predation. Predator attacks occurred more in larger and more isolated sites (Question 3), suggesting that predators respond more strongly to landscape characteristics than abundance or diversity of butterfly prey species. This decoupling of predation pressure and butterfly communities suggests that conserving and restoring healthy predator populations may not negatively impact butterfly communities. If diverse plant communities are maintained, even small and isolated habitat patches can be valuable for butterfly conservation, which may influence reserve design and habitat restoration strategies.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".