Artificial covering on trap nests improves the colonization of trap‐nesting wasps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To evaluate the role that a trap‐nest cover might have on sampling methodologies, the abundance of each species of trap‐nesting Hymenoptera and the parasitism rate in a Canadian forest were compared between artificially covered and uncovered traps. Of trap tubes exposed at eight forest sites in six trap‐nest boxes, 531 trap tubes were occupied and 1216 individuals of 12 wasp species of four predatory families, Vespidae (Eumeninae), Crabronidae, Sphecidae and Pompilidae emerged over 2 years, and no bee species were found. Results indicated that artificial covering led to a significant increase in the number of nested tubes ofAncistrocerus adiabatus,Ancistrocerus antilope,Ancistrocerus campestrisandAuplopus mellipes, and significant effects of covering were not found for the other species. No significant difference in the overall parasitism rate between covered and uncovered traps was noted. These suggested that the covering technique could provide more opportunities for some wasp species to colonize trap nests.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".