VARIATION IN SMALL MAMMAL SPECIES RICHNESS BY TRAP HEIGHT AND TRAP TYPE IN SOUTHEASTERN AMAZONIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite its biological richness, the rodent and marsupial fauna of many parts of the Amazon Basin remains poorly known and the efficacy of different methods in assessing its diversity are poorly understood. We present results of small mammal trapping at a previously unsurveyed site in the Xingú Basin of the southeastern Amazon, Pará, Brazil; provide details on a new method for arboreal trapping; and compare species richness among traps at different heights and between different trap types. Mammals were livetrapped at 3 trap heights: ground, understory (1–3 m above ground), and canopy (mean height = 11.5 m ± 3.2 SD range = 4.8–16.8 m, n = 76 trap stations). We recorded 1,769 captures of 1,178 individuals of 8 marsupial and 17 rodent species in 38,090 trap-nights (or 19,320 station-nights, where a station-night consisted of 1 Sherman and 1 Tomahawk live trap at 1 height for 1 night). Overall trap success was 6.1 individuals per 100 station-nights; success by trap position was 9.0% for ground (7,850 station-nights), 4.7% for understory (7,850 station-nights), and 2.9% for canopy (3,490 station-nights). Success by trap type was 4.7% for Shermans and 5.9% for Tomahawks, with Tomahawk traps showing a more rapid accumulation of species. Rarefied species accumulation curves showed little improvement with the inclusion of canopy trapping, which we attribute to high variability in the development of vertical structure at the site. We suggest that in areas with low and often-broken canopies, only ground and understory traps need be employed for long-term studies; however, some form of canopy trapping should be used during initial surveys so that the utility of arboreal trapping can be evaluated.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".