How important are environmental factors for the population structure of co-occurring scorpion species in a tropical forest?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding scorpion responses to environmental disturbances in forest remnants is important because, as generalist predators, they exert pressure on a wide variety of arthropod populations that contribute to forest health. In this study, we investigate the drivers of scorpion Tityus pusillus Pocock, 1893 and Ananteris mauryi Lourenço, 1982 abundance in 11 Brazilian Atlantic Forest remnants. Six environmental factors (litter dry mass, remnant area, leaf litter depth, diameter at breast height of tree, canopy openness, and tree density) were assessed. Field surveys were conducted at night using ultraviolet lamps. From a sample of 1125 captured specimens, approximately 90% were T. pusillus and 7% were A. mauryi. The abundance of T. pusillus, but not A. mauryi, was positively correlated with litter dry mass. Other variables had no effect on the abundance of either species. These results suggest differences in the response of the species to environmental factors on a smaller scale. Behavior difference in foraging between T. pusillus (sit-and-wait) and A. mauryi (wandering) and microhabitat selection may also contribute to explain the influence of litter dry mass on the abundance of T. pusillus but not on the abundance of A. mauryi.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".