Foundation species canopies affect understory beta diversity differently depending on species mobility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Beta diversity measures the spatial variation in species composition. Because it influences several community attributes, studies are increasingly investigating its drivers. Spatial environmental heterogeneity is a major determinant of beta diversity, but canopy-forming foundation species can locally modify environmental properties. We used intertidal communities dominated by the canopy-forming alga Mazzaella laminarioides as a model system to examine how a foundation species affects spatial environmental heterogeneity and the resulting beta diversity. Since canopies were found to reduce the spatial variation of temperature and desiccation during low tides, we hypothesized that canopies would decrease understory beta diversity, which we tested through a field experiment that contrasted canopy removal with presence treatments over 32 months. The beta diversity of sessile species was always lower under canopies, but canopies never affected the beta diversity of mobile species. The observed responses for sessile species may result from their abundance being more dependent on spatial abiotic variation than for mobile species, which can occur in stressful areas while temporarily foraging or in transit to other areas. These responses may likely apply to other systems exhibiting canopy-forming foundation species hosting sessile and mobile species assemblages.
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) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".