Patterns of microhabitat use in a sympatric lizard assemblage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The distribution of animals among habitats and microhabitats has frequently been used to examine patterns of niche overlap. We characterized microhabitat differences within an assemblage of four phrynosomatine lizard species (Sceloporus graciosus, Sceloporus undulatus, Urosaurus ornatus, and Uta stansburiana) that are commonly syntopic in the pinyon pine juniper woodland habitat on the elevated mesas of western Colorado. We censused lizard populations and recorded microhabitat characteristics of areas surrounding capture sites within Colorado National Monument, U.S.A. Discriminant function analysis of microhabitat features extracted two significant roots, explaining 89% of the microhabitat variation observed among species. Planned comparisons of canonical scores revealed two significant microhabitat niche differences. First, the microhabitat niche of U. ornatus was distinguished from those of all the other species by higher perch height and more vertical substrate, indicating this species' arboreality. Second, the microhabitat niche of S. graciosus was distinguished from those of the other species by having more flatland and less rock, indicating the use of more open flat sandy areas within the pinyon pine juniper woodland by this terrestrial species. Although the observed differences in microhabitat may influence the coexistence of these ecologically similar species, changes in relative abundance of the species over time suggest alternative mechanisms of coexistence.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".