Forest dependent birds are the main frugivorous species in mutualistic networks from the Brazilian Cerrado
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Not all frugivore species are equally important to the structure and maintenance of mutualistic networks and identifying the most relevant species is of great relevance to conservation ecology. Centrality metrics provide insightful information on the relative contribution of individual fruit-eating species to the topology of the networks, but there is still considerable debate on what ecological traits make frugivores highly central. We aimed to identify whether frugivory level, gape width, and forest dependency are associated with the importance of fruit-eating birds to the networks. The relative contribution of individual bird species to the networks was calculated using a combination of three centrality metrics. A mixed-effects model showed that central species in the networks were highly connected forest specialist birds. Gape width and the proportion of fruits in the diet did not explain centrality. These findings are concerning because these birds we found to be the most important species are usually highly sensitive to human disturbances and because their selective defaunation may breakdown plant-frugivore mutualistic networks. Therefore, we suggest that the conservation of seed dispersal networks in forest fragments of the Cerrado should consider protecting forest specialized frugivorous birds.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".