The ecological significance of secondary seed dispersal by carnivores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Animals play an important role in the seed dispersal of many plants. It is increasingly recognized, however, that the actions of a single disperser rarely determine a seed's fate and final location; rather, multiple abiotic or animal dispersal vectors are involved. Some carnivores act as secondary dispersers by preying on primary seed dispersers or seed predators, inadvertently consuming seeds contained in their prey's digestive tracts and later depositing viable seeds, a process known as diploendozoochory. Carnivores occupy an array of ecological niches and thus range broadly on the landscape. Consequently, secondary seed dispersal by carnivores could have important consequences for plant dispersal outcomes, with implications for ecosystem functioning under a changing climate and across disturbed landscapes where dispersal may be otherwise limited. For example, trophic downgrading through the loss of carnivores may reduce or eliminate diploendozoochory and thus compromise population connectivity for lower trophic levels. We review the literature on diploendozoochory and conclude that the ecological impact of a secondary vs. primary seed disperser depends on the relative dispersal distances, germination success, and the proportion of seeds exposed to secondary dispersal by carnivores. None of the studies up to present day have been able to rigorously assess the ecological significance of this process. We provide a framework of the components that determine the significance of diploendozoochory across systems and identify the components that must be addressed in future studies attempting to assess the ecological importance of diploendozoochory.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".