MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158595946 · doi:10.1111/1365-2435.12530

Functional assessment of animal interactions with shrub‐facilitation complexes: a formal synthesis and conceptual framework

2015· article· en· W2158595946 on OpenAlex
Christopher J. Lortie, Alessandro Filazzola, Diego A. Sotomayor

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFunctional Ecology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersU.S. Bureau of Land Management
KeywordsBiologyFacilitationHerbivoreShrubEcologyPollinationSeed dispersalTrophic levelPlant communityBiological dispersalEcological successionNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Facilitation studies focus primarily on plants often neglecting the extended effects that cascade through ecological networks. Plants interact with other organisms through consumptive effects and a myriad of non‐trophic effects such as habitat amelioration or pollination. Shrubs are a dominant benefactor species frequent in plant‐facilitation studies but can also have direct and indirect interactions with animals. Herein, we use a systematic review to address the following two objectives: (i) to propose a conceptual framework that explores these interactions including the functional roles of the interacting species, and (ii) to quantitatively summarize the current state of this field examining effects beyond plant–plant interactions. To date, a relatively limited number of studies have examined the importance of coupled benefactor‐subordinate plant positive interactions with animals (79 studies in total). From this set of studies, 36 studies documented positive plant interactions generating a total of 53 independent instances of either shrub–plant–animal or shrub–animal–plant interactions. These interaction pathways were evenly split between direct (49%) and indirect (51%) interactions of shrubs with animals. Hypotheses frequently tested included seed trapping, herbivore protection, magnet pollination and facilitation‐mediated secondary seed dispersal. The most common functional role of shrubs was protection from herbivory, and the most common animal role associated with plant‐facilitation complexes was that of a consumer. None of these studies explored bidirectional plant–animal interactions, used a network approach to describe the interaction sets, nor contrasted interaction strengths. Multitrophic, integrated sets of experiments incorporating plant facilitation into community dynamics are thus critical in advancing management of high‐stress ecosystems wherein positive interactions are commonly reported.

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.921

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.170 · 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