Dietary variation of an endangered mycophagous mammal in novel and remnant habitats in a peri‐urban landscape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Understanding how fundamental aspects of species’ ecology, such as diet, are affected in human‐dominated landscapes is vital for informing management and conserving biodiversity – particularly where species influence important ecosystem functions. Digging, mycophagous (‘fungus‐eating’) mammals play various such roles, including the dispersal of hypogeal (‘truffle‐like’) fungi. The endangered, mycophagous southern brown bandicoot (Isoodon obesulus obesulus: Peramelidae) persists in a peri‐urban landscape south‐east of Melbourne, Australia, where it occupies both ‘novel’ habitats (linear strips of vegetation along roadsides, drains and railway lines) and ‘remnant’ habitats (larger blocks of native vegetation) within dedicated conservation areas. It remains unknown how bandicoot diet, including the diversity of hypogeal fungi, varies between these habitat types, yet this could have important conservation implications. Our study aimed to (i) compare the diet ofI. o. obesulusat novel and remnant sites; and (ii) attain knowledge of hypogeal fungal diversity in these different contexts. We collected 133 bandicoot scats over 23 months and examined both broad diet composition and diversity of fungi consumed. Bandicoot diet differed between site types; in particular, ants were more prominent in scats from remnant sites, while millipedes and seeds were more prominent in scats from novel sites. All scats contained fungal spores, with hypogeal taxa comprising at least 35 of the 78 ‘morphotypes’ found at novel sites and 28 of the 59 detected at remnant sites. Fewer samples were collected at remnant sites, but they appeared to contain a greater richness of hypogeal fungi per scat. We did not detect any differences in fungal composition between site types. However, our sampling effort was insufficient to estimate true morphotype richness at either site type. Our study highlights the adaptable generalist diet of the southern brown bandicoot, as well as the likely under‐appreciated diversity of hypogeal fungi that can occur in highly modified, novel ecosystems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
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".