Burrowing Richardson’s ground squirrels affect plant seedling assemblages via environmental but not seed bank changes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
mounds result from seed rearrangement or environmental changes that favor germination of certain species over others. To test whether ground squirrels rearrange the seed bank by burrowing, we compared seed compositions among mounds, burrows, and undisturbed soil. To test whether ground squirrels change environmental conditions, we compared soil nitrate and bare ground cover on and off mounds. We also compared seedlings that germinated on mounds with seedlings that germinated on artificial disturbances from which we removed aboveground vegetation. Soil nitrate and bare ground cover were significantly higher on mounds than artificial disturbances. While seed richness and abundance did not differ among mounds, burrows, and undisturbed soil, seedling richness was reduced on mounds relative to artificial disturbances. Burrowing disturbance favors seedlings that can capitalize on bare ground availability but are less able to immobilize nitrate, as opposed to perennial species that immobilize more nitrate but take longer to establish. Our results suggest that Richardson's ground squirrels act as ecosystem engineers, although future research following succession on ground squirrel mounds is necessary to understand how they influence plant communities past the seedling stage.
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) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".