MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Three-dimensional vegetation structure drives patterns of seed dispersal by African hornbills

2024· preprint· en· W4400678992 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas Russo, Docas Nshom, António Ferraz, Nicolas Barbier, Martin Wikelski, Michael Noonan, Elsa M. Ordway, Sasan Saatchi, Thomas B. Smith

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcosystem dynamics and resilience
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersAnimal Behavior SocietyIdea WildNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationAmerican Ornithological SocietyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSeed dispersalBiological dispersalVegetation (pathology)GeographySociologyDemographyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Animals disperse the seeds of 60-90% of trees in tropical rainforests, which are among the most structurally complex ecosystems on Earth. Here, we investigated how 3D rainforest structure influences the movements of large, frugivorous birds and resulting spatial patterns of seed dispersal. We GPS-tracked white-thighed ( Bycanistes albotibialis ) and black-casqued hornbills ( Ceratogymna atrata ) in southern Cameroon and found that both species preferred areas of greater canopy height, and white-thighed hornbill preferred areas of greater vertical complexity. In addition, 33% of the hornbills preferred areas close to canopy gaps, while 16.7% and 27.8% avoided large and small gaps, respectively. White-thighed hornbills avoided swamp habitats, while black-casqued preferred them during the hottest temperatures. We mapped spatial probabilities of seed dispersal by hornbills, showing that 3D structural attributes shape this ecological process by influencing hornbill behavior. These results provide evidence of a possible feedback loop between rainforest vegetation structure and seed dispersal by animals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.403
Threshold uncertainty score0.783

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEcosystem dynamics and resilienceFrench-language works237,207