Edge contrast modulates ant community responses to edge distance in agricultural landscapes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although edge influence has been studied extensively, there is no consensus on how insect communities respond to edge environments. Studies highlight the importance of an experimental design that considers samples in adjacent matrix and the distance from the edge as a continuous factor. We sampled ants along edges composed by Cerrado vegetation and three types of crop matrix: sugarcane, eucalyptus and pasture. We assessed the response patterns of ant communities to edge contrast and distance using linear models. Ant richness increases linearly towards Cerrado core in edges composed by sugarcane, while it did not change along edges composed by eucalyptus. In both cases, ant composition on both sides of these edges tended to be highly different. In pasture, ant richness is higher than Cerrado, while the composition changes gradually along this edge, indicating that low contrast edges imply a smoother effect of edge influence on communities. Our results suggest that edge influence is dependent on the structural contrast between the habitats that compose the edges. We highlight the importance of the two‐sided approach on edge studies and the use of more than a single biodiversity dimension to provide an accurate picture of edge influence on insect communities.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".