Dispersal modes affect tropical forest assembly across trophic levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined assemblages of trees and two major groups of vertebrate seed dispersers, birds and primates, in Ugandan protected areas to evaluate the roles of dispersal limitation and species sorting in community assembly. We conducted partial Mantel tests to investigate relationships between community similarity, environmental distance and geographic distance. Results showed that environmental factors, specifically temperature and rainfall, significantly and more strongly structured tree assemblages than geographic distance. Analysis of tree dispersal modes revealed wind‐dispersed tree guilds were significantly dispersal limited but trees dispersed by animals were not. For assemblages of vertebrate seed dispersers, dispersal limitation significantly and more strongly structured assemblages of primates than species sorting whereas environmental factors significantly and more strongly structured assemblages of birds than dispersal limitation. We therefore examined whether trees dispersed by primates were more dispersal limited than trees dispersed by birds. We found consistent trends that primate fruit trees were more dispersal limited than bird fruit trees using three definitions of dispersal syndromes based on fruit color. Our results suggest that the dispersal abilities of primary consumers may affect the distribution of primary producers at large spatial scales.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".