Saproxylic beetles (Coleoptera) using<i>Populus</i>in boreal aspen stands of western Canada: spatiotemporal variation and conservation of assemblages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Saproxylic beetles associated with Populus coarse woody material were sampled from two age classes of fire-origin aspen stands in north-central Alberta, Canada. A combination of rearings from wood bolts and window traps attached to snags yielded 9571 beetles representing 257 taxa over the 3-year period (19931995). We investigated faunal variation across regions, stand ages (mature, 6090 years; old, >100 years), decay classes, wood types, and years in terms of species richness, abundance, and trophic differences. Although trophic structure was similar, faunal composition differed between the two study regions. Species richness and abundance were similar across stand ages; however, many species were collected exclusively or in great majority from old stands and from snags of large diameter, which suggested that truncation of stand age structure through widespread industrial harvest could have serious consequences for saproxylic assemblages. Beetle species richness increased with the level of wood decay, whereas the total catch of beetles tended to be higher in early stages of decay. Wood borer abundance tended to be higher in snags; however, total species richness was higher in logs. Our analyses suggest that (i) many beetle species in the Canadian boreal forest depend directly upon standing and fallen large-diameter woody material from Populus trees, (ii) variation in stage of decay is critical to beetle diversity, and (iii) provision for retention of representative old stands is critical to conservation of saproxylic communities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".