Effects of reflective groundcovers on ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in red raspberry (<i>Rubus idaeus</i>) cropping systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Reflective groundcovers are management tools used in temperate regions where light can be a limiting factor to crop productivity. Although their effects on crops have been extensively studied, little is known about their ecological impacts on ground‐dwelling organisms. Theoretically, reflective groundcovers add structural complexity to the system and thus have the potential to create refuges for ground‐dwelling invertebrates. At the same time, groundcovers can create abiotic conditions underneath them that could potentially cause declines in the abundance and richness of ground‐dwelling invertebrates. During the summers of 2006 and 2007, white, woven, reflective polymer groundcovers were placed in two red raspberry ( Rubus idaeus L.) cropping systems (organic and conventional) in south‐eastern New Brunswick to assess their effects on ground beetle richness, activity density and overall assemblage structure. A total of 8723 ground beetles belonging to 23 species were collected using pitfall traps. In contrast with the combined effects of cropping systems and sampling years, the use of a groundcover accounted for a small proportion of the variance in trap catches and caused little change in ground beetle richness, activity density and overall assemblage structure. Based on these results, we suggest that reflective groundcovers constitute promising management tools to increase light environment quality in row crops without being detrimental to ground beetle species that may contribute to pest suppression.
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 | 0.001 | 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".