Sociality and resource use: insights from a community of social spiders in Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We explored the role of group living and cooperation in resource use in a spider community where 4 congeneric species of similar body size, but with behaviors ranging from near-solitary to fully social, co-occur. We found that the range of insect sizes captured by each species reflected their nest and colony size so that species with larger colonies and prey capture webs captured larger insects than less social species. Yet, among those species whose webs did not differ significantly in size—the 2 with the largest and the 2 with the smallest webs—one captured significantly larger insects than the other. This pattern was apparently due to differences in the extent to which nest mates cooperated in the capture of prey, as in only one of the species in each pair did the size of the insects captured increase with colony size. The 4 species were thus packed along the spectrum of available insect sizes from least to most social, with limited overlap between contiguous species. The pattern of resource use was thus more overdispersed than expected by chance, as would be expected if the species had been assembled or differentiated to avoid extensive dietary overlap. We consider alternative hypotheses to explain these patterns and suggest that group size and level of cooperation may play an important role in the dietary segregation of sympatric organisms.
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 | 0.000 | 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".