MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793337729 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0193660

Quantity and quality of seed dispersal by a large arboreal frugivore in small and large Atlantic forest fragments

2018· article· en· W2793337729 on OpenAlexafffund
Óscar M. Chaves, Júlio César Bicca‐Marques, Colin A. Chapman

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPrimate Behavior and Ecology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorHigher Education Authority
KeywordsFrugivoreSeed dispersalArboreal locomotionBiologyBiological dispersalEcologySpecies richnessAbundance (ecology)HabitatAtlantic forestPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seed dispersal is a key process driving the structure, composition, and regeneration of tropical forests. Larger frugivores play a crucial role in community structuring by dispersing large seeds not dispersed by smaller frugivores. We assessed the hypothesis that brown howler monkeys (Alouatta guariba clamitans) provide seed dispersal services for a wide assemblage of plant species in both small and large Atlantic forest fragments. Although fruit availability often decreases in small fragments compared with large ones, we predicted that brown howlers are efficient seed dispersers in quantitative and qualitative terms in both forest types given their high dietary flexibility. After a 36-month study period and 2,962 sampling hours, we found that howlers swallowed and defecated intact the vast majority of seeds (96%-100%) they handled in all study sites. Overall, they defecated ca. 315,600 seeds belonging to 98 species distributed in eight growth forms. We estimated that each individual howler dispersed an average of 143 (SD = 49) seeds >2 mm per day or 52,052 (SD = 17,782) seeds per year. They dispersed seeds of 58% to 93% of the local assemblages of fleshy-fruit trees. In most cases, the richness and abundance of seed species dispersed was similar between small and large fragments. However, groups inhabiting small fragments tended to disperse a higher diversity of seeds from rarely consumed fruits than those living in large fragments. We conclude that brown howlers are legitimate seed dispersers for most fleshy-fruit species of the angiosperm assemblages of their habitats, and that they might favor the regeneration of Atlantic forest fragments with the plentiful amount of intact seeds that they disperse each year.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations34
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicPrimate Behavior and EcologyFrench-language works237,207