MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094917462 · doi:10.1139/x06-119

Recruitment of saproxylic beetles in high stumps created for maintaining biodiversity in a boreal forest landscape

2006· article· en· W2094917462 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Leif Martin Schroeder, Thomas Ranius, Barbara Ekbom, Stig Larsson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSveriges Lantbruksuniversitet
KeywordsPicea abiesScots pineBiodiversityTaigaCoarse woody debrisClearcuttingForestryEcologyBark beetleFellingGeographyForest managementAbundance (ecology)PopulationAgroforestryBiologyBark (sound)HabitatBotanyPinus <genus>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The active creation of coarse woody debris (CWD) has been suggested as a measure to preserve and restore biodiversity in managed forests. A common practice in Sweden is to create high stumps at final cutting. We evaluated the importance of high stumps for saproxylic (wood-dependent) beetles in a boreal forest landscape in central Sweden. The number of high stumps created on clearcuts was recorded and the beetle fauna under the bark of high stumps of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) and Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) was sampled. High stumps yielded only 0.13% of CWD volume and bark area in the landscape. Out of the 29 beetle species most frequently found in the landscape, high stumps were the major source of recruitment at the landscape level for only one, Hadreule elongatula (Gyllenhal). For the remaining 28 beetle species, less than 1% of the landscape's population occurred in high stumps on clearcuts. The abundance of H. elongatula increased with the area of the surrounding forest land that was covered by clearcuts within a radius of 1000 m. This is the first example of a saproxylic species associated with clearcuts, in contemporary forest landscapes, for which such an occurrence pattern has been documented.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.084
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations52
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207