Landscape effects of disturbance, habitat heterogeneity and spatial autocorrelation for a ground beetle (Carabidae) assemblage in mature boreal forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ground beetle (Carabidae) assemblages are speciose and frequently employed as indicators of ecosystem function. It is thus important to understand the factors that affect their spatial distributions so as to better interpret how ecosystem variation influences the structure of their assemblages. We evaluated how anthropogenic disturbances, habitat heterogeneity, and spatial autocorrelation (unmeasured spatially structured habitat variables and/or dispersal limitation) influence the distribution of carabids on a mature boreal forest landscape. We worked with a large sample of carabids from 194 sites from a near‐regular grid covering 70 km 2 . Data about forest floor cover, vegetation structure, soil drainage, and topography were associated with each site. We modelled the structure of carabid assemblages using these variables together with Moran’s eigenvector maps (MEM) as spatial constraints. Overall, our model explained about half of the variation in ground beetle assemblages. Forest floor cover, soil drainage, and vegetation structure were the principal factors useful for explaining carabid assemblages. The spatial patterns described by the MEMs for the ground beetle assemblages seem to result from spatial autocorrelation in soil drainage, floor cover, topography, and vegetation structure; however, this spatial autocorrelation independently and uniquely explained only 1.4% of the variation in assemblages. This was much less important than the explanatory power of the environmental variables considered; e.g. ground cover descriptors and vegetation structure by themselves accounted, respectively, for 12.1 and 4.5% of the variation in the carabid data. The spatial distribution of ground beetles in undisturbed forest was only mildly affected by surrounding anthropogenic disturbances, but clearly small patches were invaded by species characteristic of open habitat. We conclude that to help conserve ground beetle diversity at the landscape scale in boreal forests, mature forest patches should be large and connected to other patches and the surrounding forest.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".