Spatial and functional structure of an entire ant assemblage in a lowland Panamanian rainforest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ants are a major ecological group in tropical rainforests. Few studies in the Neotropics have documented the distribution of ants from the ground to the canopy, and none have included the understorey. A previous analysis of an intensive arthropod study in Panama, involving 11 sampling methods, showed that the factors influencing ant beta diversity (i.e., changes in assemblage composition) were, in decreasing order of importance, the vertical (height), temporal (season), and horizontal (geographic distance) dimensions. In the present study, we went one step further and aimed (1) to identify the best sampling methods to study the entire ant assemblage across the three strata, (2) to test if all strata show a similar horizontal beta diversity and (3) to analyze the functional structure of the entire ant assemblage. We identified 405 ant species from 11 subfamilies and 68 genera. Slightly more species were sampled in the canopy than on the ground; they belonged to distinct sub-assemblages. The understorey fauna was mainly a mixture of species found in the other two strata. The horizontal beta diversity between sites was similar for the three strata. About half of the ant species foraged in two (29%) or three (25%) strata. A single method, aerial flight interception traps placed alongside tree trunks, acting as arboreal pitfall traps, collected half of the species and reflected the vertical stratification. Using the functional traits approach, we observed that generalist species with mid-sized colonies were by far the most numerous (31%), followed by ground- or litter-dwelling species, either specialists (20%), or generalists (16%), and arboreal species, either generalists (19%) or territorially dominant (8%), and finally army ants (5%). Our results reinforce the idea that a proper understanding of the functioning of ant assemblages requires the inclusion of arboreal ants in survey programs.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".