MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401459572 · doi:10.3390/f15081390

Relationship between Plant Habitat Types and Butterfly Diversity in Urban Mountain Parks

2024· article· en· W4401459572 on OpenAlexaff
Shanjun Huang, Ying Lin, Jiaying Dong, Yuxin Lin, Ziang Su, Junyi Li, Yanqin Zhang, Jiali Jin, Weicong Fu

Bibliographic record

VenueForests · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsButterflyHabitatEcologyGeographyDiversity (politics)Plant diversityPlant communityBiodiversitySpecies richnessBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Butterflies serve as valuable indicators of urban ecosystem quality. Due to their accessibility, they also provide urban residents with essential opportunities to connect with nature, fulfilling social functions such as education and recreation, which significantly contribute to city dwellers’ physical and mental well-being. Urban mountain parks are critical habitats for butterflies; analyzing their spatial and temporal distribution and the impact of plant elements is crucial for enhancing plant landscape quality and butterfly diversity. The main results were as follows: (1) A monthly butterfly survey was carried out over the course of a year in the seven urban mountain parks of Fuzhou City. This survey recorded 46 species of butterflies from 36 genera across 7 families, totaling 2506 butterflies. (2) Among the seven habitat types analyzed, TS-, T-, and SG-habitats exhibited elevated levels of butterfly diversity, richness, abundance, and evenness. There were variations in butterfly evenness, diversity, richness, and abundance observed between these habitats. With the exception of N-habitat, there was a consistent seasonal pattern in butterfly diversity across different habitat types. (3) Butterfly diversity and abundance were significantly correlated with vegetation habitat factors across the tree, shrub, and herb layers. Multiple regression modeling using the Akaike information criterion revealed that arbor layer vegetation factors were present in the top four models for butterfly diversity, richness, abundance, and evenness. (4) The quality assessment of different habitat types ranked habitats as follows: TS-habitat > SG-habitat > TSG-habitat > T-habitat > TG-habitat > G-habitat = N-habitat.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestsSame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207