Do leaf‐cutting ant nests make “bottom–up” gaps in neotropical rain forests?: a critical review of the evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We discuss the role of leaf cutting ant nests (Atta sp.) on the formation of understory “bottom–up” gaps in tropical rain forests. We (i) describe the characteristics of Atta nests that qualify them as promoters of understory gaps; (ii) review the effects of Atta nests on the dynamics of systems other than tropical forests; and (iii) discuss the hypotheses that in neotropical rain forests Atta nests affect plant productivity, and also influence distribution and community composition of the flora. Finally, we discuss the importance of Atta nests in the dynamics of forests and compare their effects with the better‐known effects of treefall gaps. Atta nests modify soil structure, soil nutrient content, light intensity at ground level, seed bank composition and understory structure. The presence of the nest and associated refuse also accelerates the soil nutrient cycles. The size, high frequency, turnover rate and duration of these nests could make them a good substrate for particular species of plants. In spite of their potential importance, little information exists on the effects of Atta nests on plant productivity and/or plant composition in neotropical rain forests.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".