MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413111607 · doi:10.1002/ece3.71928

Power Through or Keep Looking? Comparing Species‐Area Relationships of Habitat Fragments and Their Drivers in Different Ecoregions

2025· article· en· W4413111607 on OpenAlexafffund
Travis S. Steffens, Alexandria E. Cosby, Mamy Razafitsalama, Shawn M. Lehman, Jean‐Luc Raharison, Mitchell T. Irwin

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology and Evolution · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPrimate Behavior and Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaStony Brook UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity of GuelphAmerican Society of PrimatologistsMargot Marsh Biodiversity FoundationPrimate ConservationExplorers Club
KeywordsEcoregionSpecies richnessArboreal locomotionEcologyTransectSpecies evennessGeographyBiomeHabitatBiodiversityTaxonThreatened speciesBiologyEcosystem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Our study aimed to (1) determine how the shape varies and mechanisms influence species‐area relationships within the same taxon but between different ecoregions and (2) determine how slope ( z ) and intercept ( c ) values of the linearized power model were influenced by ecoregion. Location: Madagascar. Taxon: Arboreal mammals (lemurs). We surveyed arboreal mammals (lemurs) in 42 tropical dry deciduous forest fragments in Ambanjabe Field Site in Ankarafantsika National Park in Western Madagascar and 27 primary mid‐elevation raiforest fragments in the Tsinjoarivo‐Ambalaomby new protected area in Eastern Madagascar using line‐transect methods. We determined which of 20 species‐area models were the most likely using the ‘ sars ’ R package and AICc in each ecoregion. We compared z and c values of the power model in each ecoregion using ANCOVA. We assessed what drove the shape of the SARs using the Measurement of Biodiversity framework. We found that SAR models differed between ecoregions, with the power model (AICc = 89.04) as the most likely in the west and the Monod model (AICc = 86.98) followed by three candidate models (Kobayashi, AICc = 87.02; logarithmic, AICc = 87.6; and negative exponential, AICc = 88.61) in the east. We found no significant difference in z values between ecoregions ( F 1,66 = 2.991, p = 0.088) and a non‐significant trend in c values between ecoregions ( F 1,65 = 3.938, p = 0.051). Spatial aggregation of species drove species richness patterns in the west, and species diversity and evenness drove species richness patterns in the east. Our study demonstrates that while the power and negative exponential model are good starting points, other models are also likely models to describe SARs in arboreal mammals such as primates. These patterns can reflect different mechanisms driving SARs. Ecoregion was not strongly related to differences in either z or c values of the power model.

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)0.004
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.250 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology and EvolutionSame topicPrimate Behavior and EcologyFrench-language works237,207