The stability of vertical distribution profiles of insects in air layers near the ground
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The vertical distribution of insect orders, families, and species captured over 10 elevations from the ground to 15 m over 4 years in a potato agro-ecosystem differed considerably within and between taxa. Regression slopes representing these aerial profiles remained similar over the 4 years of the study for orders Thysanoptera, Neuroptera, and Psocoptera, changed considerably for Hemiptera, Homoptera and Ephemeroptera, and were statistically non-homogeneous for Coleoptera, Hymenoptera, Diptera, Lepidoptera, Trichoptera, and Plecoptera. The slopes of the aerial profiles for families remained similar over the years for Carabidae and Elateridae, changed for Staphylinidae, Meloidae, and Scarabeidae, but were statistically non-homogeneous for Coccinellidae, Miridae, and Aphididae. The slopes of the aerial profiles for insect species were similar across years for Coccinella septempunctata L., Melanotus similis (Kirby), and Anatis mali Say, changed for Pyrrhalta luteola (Mull.), Ctenicera pulchra LeConte, Ctenicera tarsalis Melsheimer, Coccinella trifasciata perplexa Muls., Lygus lineolaris (P. de B.), Ctenicera appropinquans Randall, Apis mellifera L., and Adalia bipunctata (L.), but were significantly non-homogeneous only for Hippodamia convergens G.-M. Although most profiles obtained for insect orders in this study were remarkably similar to those reported in the literature, the level of between-year variation at our study site suggests that there is considerable overlap between profiles at all taxon levels. Vertical aerial profiles cannot be considered sufficiently characteristic of the species, family, or order across years for use as indicators of change in biodiversity. The impact of these results on insect monitoring are discussed.
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".