Assessing the importance of species and their assemblages for the biodiversity‐ecosystem multifunctionality relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biodiversity changes, such as decline in species richness and biotic homogenization, can have grave consequences for ecosystem functionality. Careful investigation of biodiversity-ecosystem multifunctionality linkages with due consideration of conceptual and technical challenges is required to make the knowledge practically useful in managing social-ecological systems. In this paper, we introduced different methods to assess perspectives regarding the issue of diversity-multifunctionality, including a possible multifunctional redundancy/uniqueness, and the influences of the number and identity of functions on multifunctionality. In particular, we aimed to align methods with detecting the mechanisms underpinning diversity-multifunctional relationships that are free from statistical biases. Based on a set of novel methods that excluded analytical biases resulting from differences in the number and identities of multiple functions considered, we found that a substantial portion of species disproportionately supported ecosystem functions and that the diversity effects on multifunctionality were more markedly observed when more functions were considered. These results jointly emphasize that individual species are, to some extent, both functionally unique as well as redundant, highlighting the complexity and necessity for managed assemblages to retain high levels of diversity. We also observed that the relative magnitude of uniqueness or redundancy can differ between species and functions and therefore should be defined in a multifunctional context. We further found that only a small subset of species was identified as significantly less important, especially at low levels of multifunctionality. Taken together, given the low level of multifunctional redundancy we identified, we stress that unraveling the hierarchical roles of biodiversity at different levels, such as individual species and their assemblages, should be a high research priority, in both theory and practice.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".