Ground Beetle Assemblages (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and Their Seasonal Abundance in Cool Season Turfgrass Lawns of Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Turfgrass lawns support a diverse fauna of arthropods including ground beetles, a major predator and seed feeding group. Despite their ubiquity and ecological roles, few studies have looked at ground beetle diversity and composition within lawns. We studied assemblages of Carabidae and their seasonal abundance in a newly established and a 10-yr-old lawn located in Quebec City, Canada. Carabids were sampled from May to November in 2003, 2004, and 2005 using pitfall traps. A total of 17 species in 10 genera and 7 tribes were identified. In the new lawn, three ground beetle species represented 72% of total Carabidae: Harpalus rufipes (30%), Clivina fossor (30%), and Amara aenea (12%). In the older lawn, the most abundant species were Amara aenea (31%), Bembidion mimus (21%), and Dyschirius brevispinus (19%), representing 71% of total Carabidae. Ground beetles were six times more abundant at the older site, and there were minor differences in species diversity between sites and years. For the most abundant Carabidae collected, seasonal abundance patterns were similar for A. aenea and B. mimus with peak abundance in July and/or August. For Harpalus rufipes, seasonal abundance was higher in 2003 and 2005 than in 2004, suggesting a biennial life cycle.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".