Responses of ground-active beetle assemblages to different styles of reforestation on cleared rainforest land
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite increasing efforts to re-establish forest cover in landscapes that have been previously cleared, the relative ability of different styles of reforestation to contribute to conservation and support forest biota is poorly known, particularly for invertebrates. We investigated the use of different types of reforested habitat by ground-active rainforest beetle assemblages on land, which had been previously cleared of rainforest, in the tropics and subtropics of eastern Australia. Between five and ten replicate sites within each of five reforestation styles were selected in each region: un-managed regrowth, young mono-species timber plantations, young mixed-species timber plantations, ecological restoration plantings, and old mono-species timber plantations, together with reference sites in pasture and in intact rainforest. Ground-active beetles were sampled using pitfall traps, and assemblages were compared among site-types. In both regions, beetle assemblages in all styles of reforestation were intermediate in species composition between pasture and rainforest. The similarity of beetle assemblages to intact rainforest increased with the age and structural complexity of reforested sites. The most rainforest-like beetle assemblages were from older reforestation sites (38–70 year plantations in tropics, and 30–40 year regrowth in subtropics) and in younger (6–22 years) but floristically and structurally diverse ecological restoration plantings in both regions. Assemblages in younger (5–20 year) sites of regrowth, mono-species timber plantations, and mixed-species timber plantations were more similar to pasture than rainforest. We conclude that achieving high canopy cover and sufficient structural complexity are important factors associated with the restoration of rainforest-like beetle assemblages to reforested sites.
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".