MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033877653 · doi:10.3897/zookeys.147.2013

Response of female beetles to LIDAR derived topographic variables in Eastern boreal mixedwood forests (Coleoptera, Carabidae)

2011· article· en· W2033877653 on OpenAlexaff
Timothy T. Work, Benoit St Onge, Jenna Jacobs

Bibliographic record

VenueZooKeys · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBorealLidarTaigaEnvironmental sciencePhysical geographyScale (ratio)EcologyRemote sensingGeographyBiologyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biodiversity monitoring is increasingly being bolstered with high resolution data derived from remote sensing such as LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). We derived a series of topographical variables, including slope, azimuth, ground curvature and flow accumulation from LIDAR images and compared these to captures of female carabids in pitfall traps in Eastern boreal mixedwood forests. We developed a series of species-specific logistic models predicting the proportion of females for eight dominant species, including Agonum retractum, Calathus ingratus, Platynus decentis, Pterostichus adstrictus, Pterostichus coracinus, Pterostichus pensylvanicus, Sphaeroderus nitidicollis and Synuchus impunctatus. We used these models to test three hypotheses related to how the modest topography in boreal forests could influence the availability of microhabitats and possibly potential sites for oviposition and larval development. In general, topographic features such as north facing slopes and high flow accumulation were important predictors of the proportion of females. Models derived from larger scale topography, such as hillsides or small watersheds on the order of ¼-1 ha were better predictors of the proportion of females than were models derived from finer scale topography such as hummocks and small depressions. We conclude that topography likely influences the distribution of carabids based on hydrological mechanisms rather than factors related to temperature. We further suggest based on the scale of responses that these hydrological mechanisms may be linked to the attenuation of past disturbances by wildfire and the propensity of unburned forest patches and fire skips.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0010.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations17
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZooKeysSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207