Resource Quantity and Quality Determine the Inter-Specific Associations between Ecosystem Engineers and Resource Users in a Cavity-Nest Web
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While ecosystem engineering is a widespread structural force of ecological communities, the mechanisms underlying the inter-specific associations between ecosystem engineers and resource users are poorly understood. A proper knowledge of these mechanisms is, however, essential to understand how communities are structured. Previous studies suggest that increasing the quantity of resources provided by ecosystem engineers enhances populations of resource users. In a long-term study (1995-2011), we show that the quality of the resources (i.e. tree cavities) provided by ecosystem engineers is also a key feature that explains the inter-specific associations in a tree cavity-nest web. Red-naped sapsuckers (Sphyrapicusnuchalis) provided the most abundant cavities (52% of cavities, 0.49 cavities/ha). These cavities were less likely to be used than other cavity types by mountain bluebirds (Sialiacurrucoides), but provided numerous nest-sites (41% of nesting cavities) to tree swallows (Tachycinetabicolour). Swallows experienced low reproductive outputs in northern flicker (Colaptesauratus) cavities compared to those in sapsucker cavities (1.1 vs. 2.1 fledglings/nest), but the highly abundant flickers (33% of cavities, 0.25 cavities/ha) provided numerous suitable nest-sites for bluebirds (58%). The relative shortage of cavities supplied by hairy woodpeckers (Picoidesvillosus) and fungal/insect decay (<10% of cavities each, <0.09 cavities/ha) provided fewer breeding opportunities (<15% of nests), but represented high quality nest-sites for both bluebirds and swallows. Because both the quantity and quality of resources supplied by different ecosystem engineers may explain the amount of resources used by each resource user, conservation strategies may require different management actions to be implemented for the key ecosystem engineer of each resource user. We, therefore, urge the incorporation of both resource quantity and quality into models that assess community dynamics to improve conservation actions and our understanding of ecological communities based on ecosystem engineering.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".