Arthropods as ecological indicators of sustainability in Canadian forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The high functional and unmatched biological diversity represented by arthropods demand that these organisms be considered as ecological indicators of sustainable forest management. Successful use of arthropods in this capacity will require a systematic and rigorous process, including selection of potential indicators, definition of relationships between indicators and disturbance variables, optimization of the useful range of the indicator and application of the indicator(s) in monitoring. In Canada, the single greatest impediment to the use of arthropods as ecological indicators is the importance of accurate species-level identification and the difficulty achieving it. Consequently, most work has focused on a few relatively well-known groups (e.g., epigaeic carabid and staphylinid beetles and spiders, saproxylic beetles, butterflies and larger night flying moths).Many recent studies have provided baseline data about the range of natural variation and have begun to quantify arthropod responses to natural and anthropogenic disturbances in the context of preplanned experiments or through various retrospective approaches. Carabid beetles are the best-studied group and sufficient sets of data now exist to permit a meta-analysis of the robustness of carabids as indicators across multiple spatial scales and in terms of how well they represent broader ecological responses to disturbances. There is good potential to incorporate arthropod indicators into monitoring programs in Canada, but it is necessary to first complete a scientifically credible selection process for specific ecological indicators. Future research should focus on completing the process for taxa under current study as this develops the best presently understood opportunities for using arthropod indicators in assessing various aspects of environmental change. Researchers should also consider other means of monitoring arthropod biodiversity by the use of surrogate ecological parameters such as ecological land classification and habitat classification systems. Key words: arthropods, ecological indicators, monitoring, biodiversity, taxonomy, sustainability
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".