Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Aim Coevolved relationships between individual species of birds and plants rarely occur in seed dispersal mutualisms. This study evaluates whether reciprocal relationships may occur between assemblages of bird and plant species. Location Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada (48°50′‐N, 125°22′‐W). Methods The distribution and fruiting phenologies of seven shrub species were compared to seasonal changes in habitat selection and seed dispersal by six fruit‐eating bird species. Results Shrub species inhabiting forest understorey habitat had earlier fruiting phenologies than shrub species inhabiting forest edge habitat along lake and bog margins. Birds showed a parallel pattern in habitat selection, being more abundant in the forest understorey early in the fruiting season, and more abundant in the forest edge later in the season. Rates of seed deposition covaried with avian habitat selection, in such a way that birds directed seed dispersal into habitats preferred by shrubs. Conclusions These results depict a broad‐scale pattern in the abundance of birds and fruits indicative of reciprocal interactions. Seasonal changes in seed dispersal to each habitat appear to reinforce the relationship between shrub habitat affinities and fruiting phenologies. Phenological differences between habitats may also reinforce seasonal changes in avian habitat selection. Therefore, although reciprocal interactions between pairs of bird and plant species are rare, broad‐scale reciprocal relationships may occur between assemblages of bird and plant species.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".