Aquatic macroinvertebrate community composition in tank‐bromeliads is determined by bromeliad species and its constrained characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Insect herbivore‐plant associations have been widely explored in the scientific literature over the past decades, but other insect‐plant associations have received little focus so far. Tank‐bromeliads host a large number of invertebrate species and, even though previous studies showed a strong variation in community composition among tank‐bromeliad species, the reasons for this variation are still unclear. In this study, we first examined whether different bromeliad species supports distinct and predictable community compositions and whether such variation was caused by (i) the bromeliad species itself, (ii) to its environment, and/or (iii) the covariance between both. We found that different tank‐bromeliad species hosts distinct macroinvertebrate assemblages, but community composition was particularly less predictable in the smaller tank‐bromeliads. Aquatic macroinvertebrates were sorted along a gradient of environmental conditions presented by the set of tank‐bromeliad species examined, according to their functional and biological traits. The tank‐bromeliad species and the environmental conditions within its tanks were strongly related and equally important in structuring these communities. These results suggest that associations between bromeliads and the fauna inhabiting its tanks are likely a result of the environmental characteristics particular to each bromeliad species.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".