Guild structure in the food web of grassland arthropod communities along an urban—rural landscape gradient
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urbanization is a major cause of ecosystem change, and arthropods are a principal component of grassland ecosystems, which are often found in human-dominated landscapes. Although higher trophic level arthropods have been expected to be the most sensitive to urbanization, researchers are debating whether this is the case. We compared the guild structure of grassland arthropod food webs along an urban—rural gradient in the Tokyo metropolitan area, the largest metropolitan area in the world. Arthropod communities were sampled, and guild types were classified by body size and food habit. The guild structure of arthropod food webs was compared among various types of grasslands, and the effects on the guild structure of the surrounding landscape and local vegetation were analyzed. The arthropod guild structure varied along the urban—rural gradient. Large carnivores were abundant in semi—natural grassland ecosystems in the traditional rural landscape, which was at one end of the studied urban-rural gradient. In contrast, small carnivores, omnivores, and detritivores were abundant in the artificial grassland ecosystems of the urban landscape at the other end of the gradient. Because very large carnivores are vulnerable to urbanization activities, rural landscapes rich in these species should be conserved.
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 | 0.001 | 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".