Colonisation of pitcher plant leaves at several spatial scales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. 1. The effect of meso‐scale (zone within bog and local plant density) and fine‐scale (leaf length and resource availability) factors on the colonisation of pitcher plant leaves by arthropods was examined in an eastern Canadian bog. 2. In spring, the abundances of three arthropods, the mosquito Wyeomyia smithii , the midge Metriocnemus knabi , and the mite Sarraceniopus gibsoni , were determined for plots with low, moderate, and high densities of pitcher plants. All overwintering inhabitants were then removed from the plots. Newly opening leaves were colonised from outside the plots, and arthropod abundances were assessed again in autumn. 3. Pitcher plant fauna varied in their response to the meso‐scale factors. In autumn (soon after colonisation), midges were more abundant in areas with high densities of pitcher plants. The relationship between mosquito abundance and plant density, and the variation in abundance among zones within the bog in the spring, were probably due to overwintering mortality. 4. All taxa responded to the fine‐scale factors, leaf length, and capture rate, in the autumn, but the strength of the responses frequently depended on a meso‐scale factor (plant density), in which responses were usually strongest where plants were sparse. Thus, the interaction between meso‐ and fine‐scale processes needs to be considered when interpreting patterns of species abundance within arthropod assemblages in pitcher plant leaves.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".