Rodent seed predation and GUDs: effect of burning and topography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the relationships between seed predation and the habitat into which a seed falls, abundance of rodents within that habitat, and foraging pattern of rodents within that habitat. Using seed plots, we assessed seed predation in burned and unburned tallgrass prairies at biweekly intervals between May and September in 2001 and 2002. Significantly more seed was removed from plots in burned than unburned prairies. Rodent abundance did not differ between burned prairie and unburned prairie, although the abundance of omnivorous–granivorous rodents (herbivores excluded) was greater in burned than unburned prairie. Proportion of seed removed in burned and unburned prairies was independent of both total rodent abundance and abundance of omnivorous–granivorous rodents. We also measured giving-up density (GUD) of rodents in burned and unburned prairies during the spring and summer of 2002. GUDs did not differ significantly in burned and unburned prairies. However, rodents had a higher GUD in uplands than in limestone breaks or lowland habitats. Our results suggest that rodent foraging in tallgrass prairie is affected by microhabitat and that rodent abundance is not sufficient to predict seed predation.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".