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 OpenAlexaff
Christopher J. Lortie, Alessandro Filazzola, Diego A. Sotomayor

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0250.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations54
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFunctional EcologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207