Spatial patterns of primary seed dispersal and adult tree distributions:<i>Genipa americana</i>dispersed by<i>Cebus capucinus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: The spatial distribution of adult trees is typically not expected to reflect the spatial patterns of primary seed dispersal, due to many factors influencing post-dispersal modification of the seed shadow, such as seed predation, secondary seed dispersal and density-dependent survival. Here, we test the hypothesis that spatial distributions of primary seed shadows and adult trees are concordant by analysing the spatial distributions of adult Genipa americana trees and the seed shadow produced by its key primary disperser, the capuchin monkey ( Cebus capucinus ) in a tropical dry forest in Costa Rica. We mapped the dispersal of G. americana seeds by the capuchins during focal animal follows (mean = 463 min, n = 50) of all adults in one free-ranging group over two early wet seasons (May–July, 2005 and 2006). We mapped the locations of all G. americana trees within a 60-ha plot that lay within the home range of the capuchin group. We conducted multiple spatial point pattern analyses comparing degrees of clustering of capuchin defecations and G. americana trees. We found that adult tree distributions and primary dispersal patterns are similarly aggregated at multiple spatial scales, despite the modification of the primary dispersal patterns and long dispersal distances.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".