Aggregation and coexistence of dung beetles in montane rain forest and deforested sites in central Peru
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ‘aggregation model of coexistence’ predicts that a strong and independent aggregation of species across ephemeral resource patches promotes species coexistence and maintains diversity. This study examines the role of aggregation in maintaining tropical dung beetle diversity and the effects of deforestation on aggregation patterns and diversity loss. Using clusters of pitfall traps, dung beetle aggregation was quantified in natural and disturbed habitat at nested temporal and spatial scales in central Peru. The results indicate that dung was colonized by a greater number of species, many of which were large, leading to a higher total beetle biomass in forest habitat than in deforested, farm habitat. Beetles were intraspecifically aggregated at each spatial scale examined. Habitat-type (forest/deforested) had no effect on the intensity of intra- or interspecific aggregation. Analyses of aggregation patterns revealed that dung beetle assemblages in forest habitat were generally saturated whereas in deforested habitat they were unsaturated. In general, interspecific aggregation was too weak relative to intraspecific aggregation to explain the high diversity of species in forest habitat. Other mechanisms, including resource partitioning are likely to play a greater role in maintaining the diversity of dung beetle assemblages in the region. These results also indicate that the loss of species from disturbed habitat has not been due to a breakdown in the aggregation mechanism.
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.
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 it