The Canopy Starts at 0.5 m: Predatory Mites (Acari: Mesostigmata) Differ between Rain Forest Floor Soil and Suspended Soil at any Height
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Suspended soils in forest canopies are thought to harbor a substantial fraction of canopy biomass and many arboreal specialists, but do forest floor generalist predators with high vagility also use this habitat? We tested the hypothesis of no difference between forest floor and suspended‐soil predatory mite faunas (Acari: Mesostigmata) in an Australian rain forest. Our results show that instead of being habitat generalists, many predatory mites partition soil into two main strata: soil suspended aboveground irrespective of height (0.5–20 m) and soil on the ground. Of 53 species of Mesostigmata in suspended soil, 53 percent (28 species) were absent from or rarely found on the ground. This increased to 60 percent (15/25 species) if only common species are considered. Among these 15 ‘suspended‐soil specialists’, all but the three least abundant were found throughout the arboreal strata. Moreover, ten species also occurred in litter accumulated on the surface of decaying logs or boulders close to the forest floor. Thus, although the arboreal predatory mite fauna is distinct from that on the forest floor, it is not restricted to the high canopy: even slightly elevated substrate appears acceptable as habitat for these suspended‐soil specialists. Our data suggest that a substantial portion of a rain forest's soil and litter fauna is held above the forest floor.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".