Lizard species evenness but not abundance tracks with avian predator occurrence across island communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alternative ecological theories make divergent predictions about the relationship between predators and their prey. If predators exert top-down ecosystem control, increases in predation should diminish prey abundance, but can alternatively diminish or enhance community diversity of prey species. But if bottom-up ecosystem controls predominate, variation in predation should track underlying variation in prey diversity and abundance, which ultimately should reflect available energy. Past research, both across islands, and comparing islands with the mainland have frequently invoked the importance of predator occurrence in regulating lizard abundance and diversity, suggesting an important role of top-down control when predators are present. However, others have posited a stronger role of food limitation, either by way of competition or bottom-up forces. If top-down control predominates generally, then negative correlations between prey abundance and predator occurrence should emerge within islands, as well as across islands. Using survey data from eBird, we inferred landscape-level bird presence for all species on the islands of Jamaica and Hispaniola. By summing occurrence probability of known anole-predator birds we estimated total avian predation pressure and combined these estimates with anole community data from a mark-recapture study that spanned spatial and climatic gradients on both islands. Avian predators and anole lizards were both affected by climate, with total predation pressure, as well as anole abundance and species richness increasing with mean annual temperature. While predator occurrence was uncorrelated with anole abundance, it was positively correlated with anole species richness. These findings suggest that despite past research showing that islands with more predators tend to have lower abundances of prey, within islands, top-down forces of predation may not be strongly limiting community diversity. Instead, bottom-up forces linked with climate may be more important drivers of diversity in both lizards and their avian predators.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".