An asymmetrical relationship between an arboreal ponerine ant and a trash-basket epiphyte (Araceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between ants and Philodendron insigne, a trash-basket epiphyte abundant along streams, was studied in French Guiana. Only a few (3%) of the young plants sheltered ants, whereas 90% of the mature individuals did. The most frequent associate was Odontomachus hastatus (Fabricius), an arboreal ponerine ant, and its nests were almost entirely (94.4%) located in P. insigne root clusters. Experimental choice tests conducted on O. hastatus workers confirmed their preference for P. insigne. We propose that the interactions between P. insigne and ants may be intermediate between non-obligatory, reward-based interactions and obligatory, specific ant–myrmecophyte interactions because (1) almost all mature P. insigne individuals are associated with ants; (2) O. hastatus is the most frequent when diverse ants nest in its root clusters; (3) ants colonize mature P. insigne, but rarely young individuals; (4) ants, particularly O. hastatus, protect the foliage of their host; and (5) at least one ant species, O. hastatus, prefers P. insigne over other host plants. The latter relationship is asymmetrical because P. insigne is inhabited by diverse ants whereas O. hastatus nests almost exclusively in P. insigne. © 2007 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2007, 91, 341–346.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".