Differential impact of vertebrate and invertebrate herbivores on the reproductive output of<i>Hormathophylla spinosa</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We analyzed herbivory on the reproductive structures (flowers, fruits, and seeds) of Hormathophylla spinosa (Cruciferae) by highly dissimilar species of herbivores, from ungulates to endophagous seed predators and gall-formers, in three different populations from 1988 to 1992. Specific objectives of the study were to quantify (i) the intensity of herbivory on reproductive structures of H. spinosa and the consequent loss of reproductive output; (ii) the frequency of herbivory, and how herbivory varied between years on the same individuals; (iii) spatial, among-population variation in herbivory intensity; and (iv) the relative importance of each herbivore species with respect to the losses in plant reproductive output. All plants of H. spinosa (n = 80) were heavily attacked by herbivores in the high mountains of the Sierra Nevada, where most plants were attacked by different types of herbivores during each year of the study. Plants lost about 50% of their reproductive structures during the study period. However, there was a pronounced difference in the magnitude of damage produced by each herbivore since ungulates accounted for most of the damage, whereas other herbivores caused much lighter damage. Mammalian herbivores appear to be a major ecological factor determining seed production in populations of H. spinosa.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".