MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403329634 · doi:10.1126/sciadv.adn6007

Drivers of woody dominance across global drylands

2024· article· en· W4403329634 on OpenAlexaff
Lucio Biancari, Martı́n R. Aguiar, David J. Eldridge, Gastón R. Oñatibia, Yoann Le Bagousse‐Pinguet, Hugo Sáiz, Nicolas Gross, Amy T. Austin, Victoria Ochoa, Beatriz Gozalo, Sergio Asensio, Emilio Guirado, Enrique Valencia, Miguel Berdugo, César Plaza, Jaime Martínez‐Valderrama, Betty J. Mendoza, Miguel García‐Gómez, Mehdi Abedi, Rodrigo J. Ahumada, Julio M. Alcántara, Fateh Amghar, José D. Anadón, Valeria Aramayo, Tulio Arredondo, Maaike Y. Bader, Khadijeh Bahalkeh, Farah Ben Salem, Niels Blaum, Bazartseren Boldgiv, Matthew A. Bowker, Cristina Branquinho, Chongfeng Bu, Batbold Byambatsogt, Dianela A. Calvo, Andrea P. Castillo Monroy, Helena Castro, Patricio Castro-Quezada, Roukaya Chibani, Abel Augusto Conceição, Courtney M. Currier, David A. Donoso, Andrew J. Dougill, Hamid Ejtehadi, Carlos Iván Espinosa, Alex Fajardo, Mohammad Farzam, Daniela Ferrante, Lauchlan H. Fraser, Juan Gaitán, Laureano Gherardi, Elizabeth Gusmán‐Montalván, Rosa Mary Hernández, Norbert Hölzel, Elisabeth Huber‐Sannwald, Frederic Mendes Hughes, Oswaldo Jadán, Florian Jeltsch, Anke Jentsch, Mengchen Ju, Kudzai Farai Kaseke, Liana Kindermann, Melanie Köbel, Peter C. le Roux, Pierre Liancourt, Anja Linstädter, Jushan Liu, Michelle A. Louw, Gillian Maggs‐Kölling, Oumarou Malam Issa, Eugène Marais, Pierre Margerie, João Vitor S. Messeder, Juan P. Mora, Gerardo Moreno, Seth M. Munson, Gabriel Oliva, Yolanda Pueyo, R. Emiliano Quiroga, Sasha C. Reed, Pedro J. Rey, Alexandra Rodríguez, Laura B. Rodríguez, Víctor Rolo, Jan C. Ruppert, Osvaldo E. Sala, Ayman Salah, Ilan Stavi, Colton Stephens, Anthony M. Swemmer, Alberto L. Teixido, Andrew D. Thomas, Heather L. Throop, Katja Tielbörger, Samantha K. Travers, Liesbeth van den Brink, Viktoria Wagner, Wanyoike Wamiti, Deli Wang, Lixin Wang, Peter Wolff, Laura Yahdjian, Eli Zaady, Fernando T. Maestre

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Advances · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaThompson Rivers University
FundersUniversidad de Buenos AiresKing Abdullah University of Science and TechnologyFerdowsi University of MashhadBayerische ForschungsallianzBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaGeneralitat ValencianaDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftSecretaría de Ciencia y Técnica, Universidad de Buenos AiresNational Science FoundationNorthern Arizona UniversityUniversidad de AlicanteAgencia Nacional de Promoción de la Investigación, el Desarrollo Tecnológico y la InnovaciónEuropean Commission
KeywordsGrazingDominance (genetics)Woody plantRangelandShrubConservation grazingEcologyEcosystemAgroforestryEnvironmental scienceAbiotic componentBiologyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increases in the abundance of woody species have been reported to affect the provisioning of ecosystem services in drylands worldwide. However, it is virtually unknown how multiple biotic and abiotic drivers, such as climate, grazing, and fire, interact to determine woody dominance across global drylands. We conducted a standardized field survey in 304 plots across 25 countries to assess how climatic features, soil properties, grazing, and fire affect woody dominance in dryland rangelands. Precipitation, temperature, and grazing were key determinants of tree and shrub dominance. The effects of grazing were determined not solely by grazing pressure but also by the dominant livestock species. Interactions between soil, climate, and grazing and differences in responses to these factors between trees and shrubs were key to understanding changes in woody dominance. Our findings suggest that projected changes in climate and grazing pressure may increase woody dominance in drylands, altering their structure and 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 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 score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.884

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations15
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience AdvancesSame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207