Taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional responses of plant communities in different life-stages to forest cover loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Habitat loss is among one of the main causes of biodiversity decline worldwide. Therefore, assessing different dimensions of diversity such taxonomic, phylogenetic, and functional is important for more effective conservation strategies. Also, important but scarce, is the comparison of different life-stages which can bring insights due to different time delay on species responses to anthropogenic changes. Herein we assessed the influence of landscape-scale forest cover loss on different diversity dimensions of adult and juvenile tree assemblages. Our results showed that richness, phylogenetic and functional diversity were highly correlated for both life-stages. Forest cover loss leads to a decline in species richness more sharply in juveniles than adults, but in general, it did not affect phylogenetic and functional diversity. The responses among life-stages differed only for richness and phylogenetic mean pairwise distance. The negative impacts of forest cover loss on richness were not mirrored by phylogenetic and functional diversity, although there are some differences among life-stages. Our findings suggest that for practical purposes species richness is a primary and effective biodiversity measure at the landscape-scale. Furthermore, the stronger effects on juvenile assemblages indicate recruitment limitation and an impoverished future plant community, highlighting the importance to include different life-stages into conservation actions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".