Effect of gap harvesting on epiphytes and bark-dwelling arthropods in the Acadian forest of central Maine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using a long-term silvicultural experiment, we (i) investigated how epiphyte and arthropod communities were affected by height on the stem, bark texture, and stem diameter of red maple ( Acer rubrum L.) trees, (ii) examined how harvest gaps influenced epiphyte and arthropod communities on red maple boles, and (iii) explored whether these effects influenced the relationship between the epiphyte and arthropod communities. Arthropod and epiphyte assemblages dwelling on the bark of red maple trees located in undisturbed forest and harvest gaps varied with height. Bryophytes, Cladonia spp., and cyanolichens were most abundant near the base of the tree, while noncyano, foliose lichens and fruticose lichens were most abundant 4–6 m above the ground. Acari, Araneae, and Collembola were most abundant near the base of the tree, while Diptera were most abundant above 2 m. A previously undocumented assemblage of dipterans (flies), primarily in the suborder Nematocera, was found. Gap harvesting reduced the abundance of bryophytes, Collembola (springtails), Araneae (spiders), and total arthropods on the bark of red maple. Canonical correlation analysis revealed a positive association between bryophytes, Collembola, and Araneae. A strong correlation between Collembola and Araneae suggested a possible trophic interaction that may be affected by gap harvesting through a reduction in bryophyte abundance.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".