Interactions among young stages of the wolf spiders <i>Pardosa</i> <i>moesta</i> and <i>P</i> . <i>mackenziana</i> (Araneae: Lycosidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Young stages of the wolf spiders Pardosa moesta and P . mackenziana coexist on the forest floor in a deciduous forest in central Alberta, yet nothing is known of the potential interactions between and among these ubiquitous species. An experiment, using a series of 0.25‐m 2 arenas, was designed to test for inter‐ and intraspecific exploitative competition. Experimental treatments were established in the arenas in late July. Treatments involved stocking recently hatched spiderlings of each species alone, and with both species together at natural (10 spiderlings per arena) and two times the natural densities. In September the arenas were searched for Pardosa spiderlings, and the survival and mass gain of each species were determined. Other predatory arthropods, and Collembola, a common prey of young wolf spiders, were counted in the arenas before the experimental treatments were established and at the end of the experiment. No evidence for competitive interactions was uncovered, but spiderling survival was 29% for P . moesta and 20% for P . mackenziana , suggesting other mortality factors (e.g., cannibalism, intraguild predation) may be important. Top‐down effects (predatory arthropods) had no effect on Pardosa survival. Bottom‐up effects, however, were significant as treatments containing spiderlings had fewer Collembola compared to control arenas, further supporting the importance of spiders in leaf‐litter food webs.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".