Quantifying interspecific and intraspecific diversity effects on ecosystem functioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rapid environmental changes result in massive biodiversity loss, with detrimental consequences for the functioning of ecosystems. Recent studies suggest that intraspecific diversity can contribute to ecosystem functioning to an extent comparable to contributions of interspecific diversity. Knowledge on the relative importance of these two sources of biodiversity is essential for predicting ecosystem consequences of biodiversity loss and will aid in the prioritization of conservation targets and implementation of management measures. However, our quantitative insights into how interspecific and intraspecific biodiversity loss affects ecosystem functioning and how the effects of these two sources of biodiversity loss on ecosystem functioning can be compared are still very limited. To facilitate such quantitative insights, we extend the interspecific Price partitioning method originally introduced by J. Fox in 2006, previously used to quantify species loss and gain effects on ecosystem functioning, to also account for the effects of intraspecific diversity loss and gain on ecosystem function. Using this extended version can yield the quantitative information required for answering research questions addressing correlations between interspecific and intraspecific diversity effects on ecosystem functioning, identifying interspecific and intraspecific groups with large effects, and assessing whether intraspecific diversity can compensate for losses in interspecific diversity. Applying this method to carefully designed experiments will provide additional insights into how biodiversity loss at different ecological levels contributes to and changes ecosystem functioning.
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) | 0.000 | 0.006 |
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".