The lizard fauna of litter mats in the stony desert of the southern Northern Territory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The formation of Australia’s stony deserts 2–4 million years ago will have reduced the availability of suitable habitat for lizards extant at that time, particularly for fossorial species. For such taxa, mats of litter, which form underneath woody vegetation, may offer the only suitable refuge sites in a greater matrix of unsuitable stony and compacted clay habitat. The integrity of litter mats in Australia’s stony deserts is potentially threatened by trampling by large introduced herbivores and by surface flows during flood events. Here we assess the importance of litter mats as habitat for lizards in these stony deserts and determine the suitability of the mats in relation to disturbance regimes. We surveyed 85 sites in the stony desert in the extreme south of the Northern Territory, using hand-raking as the sampling technique. We located 85 individuals of eight lizard species from three families, including 18 individuals of the nationally vulnerable monotypic pygopodid Ophidiocephalus taeniatus, establishing the significance of this limited microhabitat. Lizards were located underneath mats produced from the litterfall of four species of Acacia shrubs, though were not evenly distributed across these four mat types. Our results also provide the first evidence of the impact of large introduced herbivores on the suitability of litter mats. Although this was not statistically significant, lizards were more likely to be located at sites without disturbance from large herbivores, and were located only under individual mats that exhibited no sign of disturbance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".