Abiotic influences on the behaviour of rodents, ants, and plants affect an ant-seed mutualism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
:Deserts are open environments characterized by striking shifts in temperature and light regimes. We hypothesized that the abiotic environment mediates the interaction between an ant-dispersed plant, Datura wrightii (Solanaceae), ant mutualists, and rodent seed predators in the Sonoran Desert. Field experiments contrasting diurnal and nocturnal seed collection rates in the presence of ants only, vertebrates only, and in the presence of both groups indicated that 85% of seed collection by mammalian seed predators occurred at night (between 1900 and 0700). Seed collection by ants, in contrast, was similar between day and night, although seed collection decreased during very hot days and very bright nights. The total number of seeds collected by both groups foraging separately exceeded the number removed when both groups shared access to seed depots, suggesting that ants and rodents compete for seeds. However, D. wrightii plants dehisced 86% of their fruits between 0700 and 1900, increasing the likelihood of seed collection by ant mutualists rather than rodent seed predators. Dehiscence was sensitive to environmental cues: greenhouse plants kept at constant temperature and humidity dehisced 47% of their fruits between 0700 and 1900. Additional field experiments demonstrated that seed-collecting ants transported seeds considerable distances to their nests, microsites that can be rich in nutrients. The mean (± SE) seed dispersal distance was 6.1 ± 0.5 m, the longest mean dispersal distance yet reported for an ant-dispersed seed.
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".