Considering species richness and rarity when selecting optimal survey traps: comparisons of semiochemical baited flight intercept traps for Cerambycidae in eastern North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We compared standard multiple‐funnel, modified multiple‐funnel, intercept panel and canopy malaise ( SLAM ) traps with top and bottom collecting cups for their effectiveness (species richness, rarity, abundance) at capturing Cerambycidae in eastern North America. Experiments were conducted in New York, Louisiana, Massachusetts and Georgia in 2011 and 2012. A combination of pheromones and host volatiles chosen to match local forest types were used as lures. Species richness tended to be higher in SLAM and modified funnel traps than standard funnel and intercept panel traps. SLAM traps also captured the highest number of species, unique species, rare (species accounting for ≤ 1% of total cerambycids at a site) and singleton species at each site. Individual‐based rarefaction and sample‐based species accumulation curves suggested that SLAM traps are more effective for capturing cerambycid species. For many estimates, modified funnel and funnel traps were lower than SLAM traps but greater than intercept panel traps for describing cerambycid communities. Modified funnel and SLAM traps generally captured the highest abundance of cerambycids but the response of the individual subfamily and species varied by trap type. SLAM traps should be considered as a strong tool to describe cerambycid communities when used in conjunction with pheromones and host volatiles.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".