A field test of inverse modeling of seed dispersal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PREMISE OF THE STUDY: Seed dispersal distance-a key process in plant population dynamics-remains poorly understood because of the difficulty of finding a source plant so well isolated from conspecifics that seeds or seedlings can be unambiguously attributed to it. Inverse modeling (IM) of seed dispersal, a simple statistical technique for parameterizing dispersal kernels, has been widely used since 1992; surprisingly, however, this approach has never been verified in the field. METHODS: We released from 20 nearby trees the winged seeds of a liana species, Entada polystachya, near the coast in a tropical, dry forest in Jalisco, Mexico. KEY RESULTS: With a two-parameter log-normal function, we found that IM predicted both the shape and scale parameters well as long as we used the entire data set. When, however, we subsampled (thus simulating the use of transects for seedlings or an array of seed traps), the estimates of the scale and shape parameters were often more than double the real values. The problem was due to the marked anisotropy (directional bias; in this case, in the direction of the diurnal sea breeze) of the individual dispersal curves. When we randomized the direction of dispersal of individual seeds from the trees (keeping dispersal distances unchanged), predictions of parameter values were excellent. CONCLUSIONS: Inverse modeling must include directional parameters when dealing with areas where strong anisotropy is to be expected, e.g., for wind dispersal of seeds near coasts or pollination by any vector where a plant species is limited to a strongly linear habitat such as river banks.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".