MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Does urbanization decrease diversity in ground beetle (Carabidae) assemblages?

2009· article· en· W1925233589 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tibor Magura, Gábor L. Löveï, Béla Tóthmérész

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Ecology and Biogeography · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMagyar Tudományos AkadémiaHungarian Scientific Research Fund
KeywordsUrbanizationBiodiversityEcologyGeographySpecies richnessHabitatSpecies diversityGround beetleFaunaDiversity indexBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Aim We wanted to test whether urbanization has similar effects on biodiversity in different locations, comparing the responses of ground beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidae) assemblages with an urbanization gradient. We also wanted to see if urbanization had a homogenizing effect on ground beetle assemblages. Locations Nine forested temperate locations in Europe, Canada and Japan. Methods Published results of the Globenet Project were used. At all locations, three stages were identified: (1) a forested (rural) area, (2) a suburban area where the original forest was fragmented and isolated, and (3) remnants of the original forest in urban parks. These habitats formed an urbanization series. Study arrangements (number and operation of traps) and methods (pitfall trapping) were identical, conforming to the Globenet protocol. Assemblage composition and diversity patterns were evaluated. Diversity relationships were analysed by the Rényi diversity ordering method considering all ground beetles and – separately – the forest specialist species. Taxonomic homogenization was examined by multivariate methods using assemblage similarities. Results Overall biodiversity (compared by species richness and diversity ordering) showed inconsistent trends by either urbanization intensity or by geographic position. However, when only forest species were compared, diversity was higher in the original rural (forested) areas than in urban forest fragments. Within‐country similarities of carabid assemblages were always higher than within‐urbanization stage similarities. Main conclusions Urbanization does not appear to cause a decrease in ground beetle diversity per se. Forest species decline as urbanization intensifies but this trend is masked by an influx of non‐forest species. The rural faunas were more similar to the urban ones within the same location than similar urbanization stages were to each other, indicating that urbanization did not homogenize the taxonomic composition of ground beetle faunas across the studied locations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations208
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Ecology and BiogeographySame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207