MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Indirect effects of herbivory by deer reduce abundance and species richness of web spiders

2004· article· en· W2488881604 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tadashi Miyashita, Mayura B. Takada, Aya Shimazaki

Bibliographic record

VenueEcoscience · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpecies richnessHerbivoreAbundance (ecology)BiologyEcologyPredationHabitatTrophic level

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

:We examined the abundance and species richness of web spiders in forests with and without deer to test the hypothesis that herbivory by deer simplifies habitat structure, thereby reducing the number of web spiders. The number of individuals, the number of species, and the availability of potential web sites were all lower where deer were present. The decrease in the abundance of spiders in the presence of deer was more prominent in large species. The species richness standardized by rarefaction was still lower where deer were present in one of two seasons, suggesting that the reduced number of species in the presence of deer was not simply a by-product of the decreased number of individuals. Web site availability was positively correlated with the number of individuals as well as with the number of species when both forest types were combined. However, prey availability, estimated by the number of insects captured with sticky traps, did not differ significantly between sites with and without deer. Thus, the decrease in spiders was most likely caused by indirect non-trophic effects of herbivory that were mediated by the simplification of habitat structure, not by a decrease in prey abundance.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations64
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcoscienceSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207