The role of birds in the acacia—ant interaction: New insights from nest predation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The association of the swollen-thorn acacia (Acacia cornigera) and ants is an example of defensive mutualism. It has been shown that some bird species prefer to nest in myrmecophyte acacias, suggesting that their nests are protected from predators by the associated ants. Based on previous knowledge regarding the existence of extended benefits for birds in the acacia-ant interaction, the role of the rufous-naped wren was analyzed within the ant-acacia system. Nest predation was assessed taking into account tree species with and without myrmecophytic interactions, tree cover and height, the presence and abundance of ants, predator type, and the distance between each nest and the closest myrmecophyte acacia. The probability of survivorship of artificial nests using a known fate analysis was calculated. The results showed non-significant differences in the probability of survivorship regardless of the presence and density of myrmecophyte acacias, tree cover and height, the presence and abundance of ants, or predator type. Interestingly, the highest degree of predation in the artificial nests was related to the rufous-naped wren. These results suggest that the acacia-ant-bird interaction is more complex than previously perceived.
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) | 0.001 | 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".