Habitat use of co-occurring burying beetles (genus <i>Nicrophorus</i>) in southeastern Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The coexistence of closely related species plays an important role in shaping local diversity. However, competition for shared resources can limit the ability of species to coexist. Many species avoid the costs of coexistence by diverging in habitat use, known as habitat partitioning. We examine patterns of habitat use in seven co-occurring species of burying beetles (genus Nicrophorus Fabricius, 1775), testing the hypothesis that Nicrophorus species partition resources by occupying distinct habitats. We surveyed Nicrophorus abundance and 54 habitat characteristics at 100 random sites spanning an environmentally diverse region of southeastern Ontario, Canada. We found that three species occupied distinct habitat types consistent with habitat partitioning. Specifically, Nicrophorus pustulatus Herschel, 1807, Nicrophorus hebes Kirby, 1837, and Nicrophorus marginatus Fabricius, 1801 appear to be specialists for forest canopy, wetlands, and open fields, respectively. In contrast, Nicrophorus orbicollis Say, 1825, Nicrophorus sayi Laporte, 1840, and Nicrophorus tomentosus Weber, 1801 appear to be generalists with wide breadths of habitat use. We were unable to identify the habitat associations of Nicrophorus defodiens Mannerheim, 1846. Our findings are consistent with habitat acting as an important resource axis along which some Nicrophorus species partition; however, divergence along other resource axes (e.g., temporal partitioning) also appears important for Nicrophorus coexistence.
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) | 0.002 | 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".