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 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".