Effect of corridors on the movement behavior of the jumping spider <i>Phidippus princeps</i> (Araneae, Salticidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Corridors are a common conservation strategy intended to increase the spatial connectivity among isolated habitat patches. Corridors, however, are not always effective. This study demonstrates that corridors increase movement to new patches for the jumping spider Phidippus princeps (Peckham and Peckham, 1883) (Araneae, Salticidae), a visually oriented predator. I assigned spiders to one of three microlandscape treatments, created in an old field dominated by alsike clover ( Trifolium hybridum L.) and alfalfa ( Medicago sativa L.), in which patches were connected to (i) vegetated corridors and bare pathways, (ii) only vegetated corridors, and (iii) only bare pathways. The movement of P. princeps was effectively directed by corridors. When given a choice of paths, spiders invariably chose vegetated corridors over bare pathways to emigrate from and to immigrate to new patches. Spiders rarely moved between patches when only bare pathways were available. In the absence of corridors, P. princeps did not risk open ground to move to new habitat even though conspecific density was high. The corridors facilitated the interpatch movement of P. princeps, suggesting that P. princeps is restricted in its habitat use. Thus, a higher degree of spatial connectivity is likely to increase the exchange of individuals for species that are restricted in their movements by unsuitable habitat.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".