Asynchrony between ant seed dispersal activity and fruit dehiscence of myrmecochorous plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PREMISE OF THE STUDY: Phenological mismatch has received attention in plant-pollinator interactions, but less so in seed dispersal mutualisms. We investigated whether the seasonal availability of myrmecochorous seeds is well matched to the seasonal activity patterns of seed-dispersing ants. METHODS: We compared seasonal timing of seed removal by a keystone seed-dispersing ant, Aphaenogaster rudis, and fruit dehiscence of several species of plants whose seeds it disperses in a deciduous forest in southern Ontario, Canada. We examined the timing of elaiosome "robbing" by the nonnative slug Arion subfuscus and tested whether seed removal by ants declines in response to supplementation with additional elaiosome-bearing seeds (ant "satiation"). KEY RESULTS: Seed removal from experimental depots peaked early in the season for all plant species and correlated with temperature. In contrast, elaiosome robbing by slugs increased late in the season and thus may disproportionately affect plants with late-dehiscing fruits. Ant colonies removed seeds at similar rates regardless of seed supplementation, indicating that satiation likely does not impact seasonal patterns of seed dispersal in this system. Fruits of the five myrmecochorous plant species in our study dehisced at discrete intervals throughout the season, with minimal overlap among species. Peak dehiscence did not overlap with peak seed removal for any plant species. CONCLUSIONS: Fruit dehiscence of myrmecochorous plants and peak ant seed dispersal activity occur asynchronously. Whether future climate warming will shift ant and plant phenologies in ways that have consequences for seed dispersal remains an open question.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".