Data from: Reproductive success of a keystone herbivore is more variable and responsive to climate in habitats with lower resource diversity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. The effects of climate on wild populations are often channeled through species interactions. Population responses to climate variation can therefore differ across habitats, owing to variation in the biotic community. Theory predicts that consumer demography should be less variable and less responsive to climate in habitats with greater resource diversity. 2. We tested these predictions using a long-term study of breeding lesser snow geese along the western coast of Hudson Bay, Manitoba, Canada. Reproductive success was measured in 22 years from 114 locations, in either coastal or inland habitat types. We used Bayesian analysis to estimate the response of reproductive success to climate in each habitat type, along with residual variation not explained by climate. We then quantified gosling diet composition in each habitat type to test the prediction that reproductive success would be less variable and more responsive to climate in habitats with lower resource diversity. 3. Reproductive success responded positively to seasonal warmness, but this response was much stronger in inland habitats than in coastal habitats. Site- and year-level random effects were also three to five times more variable in inland habitats. Simultaneously, land cover diversity and gosling diet diversity were lower in inland habitats. 4. Our study illustrates that spatial variation in resource diversity (and thus, species interactions) can have important effects on consumer responses to climate. In this system, climate change is expected to disproportionately increase the reproductive success of snow geese in vast inland habitats, potentially counteracting management efforts to reduce the abundance of this keystone herbivore.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.017 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".