MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403323861 · doi:10.1111/jzo.13216

Co‐occurrence in snake and lizard sister species is unrelated to major ecomorphological traits

2024· article· en· W4403323861 on OpenAlexaff
A. Shinde, T. Jonathan Davies, Uri Roll, Shai Meiri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Zoology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyLizardEcomorphologySquamataZoologySisterEcologyEvolutionary biologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Environmental factors and interspecific interactions, such as competition and facilitation, can shape species' geographic ranges. Here, we tested the relationship between geographic range overlap of squamate sister species, and their divergence in body size, diel activity, and microhabitat use. Competition theory predicts that sister species with similar traits will overlap less geographically than sister pairs with dissimilar traits. However, similar distributions may present similar selective pressures and favour similar adaptations, such that habitat filtering may result in species with more similar traits in sympatry. Across 1434 sister species contrasts, we found little relationship between range overlap and niche divergence. In some models, the divergence in body size and microhabitat use marginally increased with sympatry, while in other models, sympatric sisters had similar activity times. However, the low R‐squared values of almost all these models lend only weak support to predictions from competition or habitat filtering theories. Sympatric sister species within the same biome showed more similar activity times than expected, lending some support to habitat filtering. Niche divergence in allopatry or sympatry, as calculated using a multi‐trait dissimilarity index, did not show a phylogenetic signal, and niches of sister species from different squamate clades did not deviate significantly from the null expectation. Overall, niche divergence or convergence, across the axes we explored, is not a prerequisite for regional species co‐occurrence. We suggest here that the lack of consistent support for either limiting similarity or habitat filtering may reflect that both these forces act as transient phenomena. More fine‐grained analyses, in space and time, would be needed to detect their fingerprints. Thus, coexistence in the face of competition can arise due to various evolutionary and biogeographic mechanisms, acting concurrently or asynchronously.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.265
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ZoologySame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207