Plant dispersal systems in <scp>N</scp>eotropical forests: availability of dispersal agents or availability of resources for constructing zoochorous fruits?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim We used abiotic and biotic factors as predictors of the proportions of different dispersal systems in N eotropical forests, to test whether the geographical patterns in dispersal systems are mostly related to the availability of resources for constructing zoochorous fruits or to the availability of dispersal agents. Location 101 one‐hectare vegetation plots established in eight H oldridge life‐zones in C olombian N eotropical forests. Methods We assigned dispersal systems to 2262 species and 1210 morphospecies, using the relative frequency and relative abundance of endozoochory, synzoochory, anemochory and hydrochory per plot as response variables. We assessed the relationships between dispersal systems and ecological factors (elevation, climatic and edaphic variables, raw and weighted richness of potential frugivores, biomass of primates, wind speed, flooding regime and fragmentation), controlling for spatial autocorrelation and phylogenetic constraints. Results Endozoochory was highly represented in all plots. High levels of rainfall and low precipitation seasonality were associated with high proportions of zoochory (endozoochory and synzoochory) and low proportions of anemochory. The biomass of primates was positively associated with the relative abundance of endozoochory, and the weighted richness of frugivores was positively associated with the relative frequency of endozoochory. Contrary to the resource‐availability hypothesis, synzoochory (the most expensive dispersal system in terms of plant investment in fruit mass) was most common in soils with low carbon densities. Finally, the proportions of anemochory and hydrochory were highest in windy areas and flooded forests, respectively. Main conclusions Although there is a relationship between rainfall, zoochory and anemochory, the absence of any positive relationships between zoochory, temperature, soil total nitrogen density and soil carbon density shows that the proportions of dispersal systems in C olombian Neotropical forests are mostly related to the availability of dispersal agents.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".