Does avian gut passage favour seed germination of woody species of the Chaco Serrano Woodland in Argentina?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Frugivorous birds are key dispersal agents of many plant species and also may facilitate seed germination after gut passage. However, the general effects of gut passage on seed germination are still not clear, with positive, negative, and neutral effects reported on seed germination. We evaluated seed germination of seven bird-dispersed plant species of the Chaco Serrano Woodland in Córdoba, Argentina: Celtis ehrenbergiana (Klotzsch) Liebm., Condalia spp. Cav., Lantana camara L., Lithraea molleoides (Vell.) Engl., Lycium cestroides Schltdl., Schinus fasciculatus (Griseb.) I.M. Johnst., and Zanthoxylum coco Gillies. We compared germination percentages and germination speed among seeds ingested by birds, manually extracted seeds, and seeds from intact fruits to understand which mechanisms are acting on bird gut-passed seeds. For six plant species, the action of frugivorous birds increased seed germination percentages and germination speed, through scarification, deinhibition, or combined mechanisms. Our results contribute to a better understanding of the mechanisms acting on seeds passed through bird gut. Also, we show the pivotal role that frugivorous birds exert on the seed germination of native woody plant species in the threatened ecosystem of the Chaco Serrano Woodland.
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".