Asymmetrical competition between Neotropical dung beetles and its consequences for assemblage structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. 1. This study combines the results of laboratory experiments using representative assemblage components and pitfall trapping over a large geographical area to examine the hypothesis that ongoing interspecific competition structures Neotropical dung beetle assemblages. 2. From Guatemala to Panama assemblages of large to medium‐sized, fast‐tunnelling dung beetles include a single large, nocturnal dichotomiine species, Dichotomius annae (Kohlmann & Solís, 1997). In competition experiments, this species out‐competed the medium‐sized coprine species, Copris lugubris Boheman and Phanaeus demon Laporte‐Castelnau, for dung and nesting space, in spite of earlier colonisation by the diurnal species, P. demon . 3. Differences in the abundance of D. annae at Central American sites did not affect total fast‐tunnelling dung beetle assemblage richness over the rainy season. However, D. annae rank order was directly related to the probability of interspecific encounters (Hurlbert's Δ 1 ) among species. These trends were also observed when species lists from published and unpublished studies of other large allopatric dichotomiine species, with a more northerly distribution, were included in the analyses. 4. The results obtained suggest that where large dichotomiine species are abundant, their efficient pre‐emption of a considerable proportion of available resources drives all, or most, other fast‐tunnelling species to a lower population density, thereby decreasing assemblage diversity.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".