MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145319843 · doi:10.2980/20-1-3573

Attractiveness of fallen fleshy fruits to ants depends on previous handling by frugivores

2013· article· en· W2145319843 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ana Gabriela Delgado Bieber, Paulo Sávio Damásio da Silva, Paulo S. Oliveira

Bibliographic record

VenueEcoscience · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundo de Apoio ao Ensino, à Pesquisa e Extensão, Universidade Estadual de CampinasConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsFrugivoreBiologyRubiaceaeSeed dispersalPsychotriaMutualism (biology)PheidoleNest (protein structural motif)ANTEcologyBotanyHabitatBiological dispersalPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interactions between ants and vertebrate-dispersed fleshy fruits are common on the floor of tropical forests. These interactions are considered beneficial to seeds if ants clean the seed (which may prevent fungal contamination and/or increase germination success) or act as secondary fine-scale dispersers (depositing the seed in nearby nutrient-enriched nest sites). Benefits to seeds, however, may be constrained by limited ant access to fruits. Here, we experimentally tested whether ant access to fallen fleshy fruits of Psychotria suterella (Rubiaceae) can be affected by previous handling (including ingestion) by birds. We found that mandibulated fruits and fruits embedded in feces are more prone to be visited by ants compared to entirely intact fruits. Moreover, the number of ant species per station was higher for vertebrate-handled fruit categories. We suggest that ongoing vertebrate loss in tropical forests may affect this highly opportunistic and potentially mutualistic interaction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.885
Threshold uncertainty score0.196

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.180 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcoscienceSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207