Regionally unique ant assemblages associated with community‐based conservation in northwestern Ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Community‐based conservation can play an important role in preserving biodiversity, but it is unclear whether such benefits extend to invertebrate communities; in particular, baseline data for insect communities is lacking to assess efficacy of conservation efforts. Here we evaluate ant assemblages across three habitats, protected within the Wechiau Community Hippo Sanctuary (WCHS) in the Upper West Region of Ghana. We compare relative ant species diversity and uniqueness between the sanctuary's Guinea savannah, riparian forest, and floodplain habitats. Ants were collected with other invertebrates using malaise traps, pitfall traps, and yellow pan traps between 2001 and 2011 multiple times per year. From these data, we compiled a list of ant species found, castes collected, and functional groups, and evaluated the differences in ant diversity among the habitats using accumulation curves, assemblage structure comparison, and Morisita‐Horn indices. We also compared the overall WCHS assemblage to other ant assemblages in Western Africa to gain a clearer understanding of relative diversity and uniqueness. We collected 83 species from seven subfamilies and 44 genera; 14 of the species were previously unrecorded in Ghana, including one ant species new to science. Ant species diversity differed among habitats in assemblage composition but not significantly in species richness. We found that the WCHS ant assemblage was relatively unique, sharing only about 35% of species found in similar Côte d'Ivoire habitats, and 25% of other Ghanaian assemblages. Some species present in the WCHS were not found in any of the other compared assemblages. We conclude that community‐based conservation initiatives like the WCHS may play an important role in conserving the biodiversity of ants.
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) | 0.000 | 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".