The fate of an intentional introduction of <i>Formica lugubris</i> to North America from Europe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Red wood ants (Formica s.str.) are not prevalent in the forests of North America, but commonly occur in conifer and mixed conifer forests in northern Europe and Asia. In 1971, a European red wood ant species, Formica lugubris, was intentionally established in a 35‐year‐old predominantly mixed conifer plantation approximately 30 km north of QC, Canada. The purpose of its introduction was to evaluate the potential of this species as a biological control agent against conifer‐defoliating Lepidoptera species. This red wood ant introduction was monitored periodically for about 5 years after establishment, but its long‐term fate has not been reported. We visited this field site in 2005 and found that this species was well established, and we could locate some of the nests that resulted from the original release. We mapped and measured over 100 nests around the site of original release, which ranged from 5 cm in height to over 1 m. We estimated the population of introduced ants to have grown to over 8 million in the last 34 years. Significant clustering of nests suggests that these nests may be one supercolony. F. lugubris has become a dominant understory arthropod in this mixed forest, and is likely to have ecological impacts, including effects at the community and ecosystem level.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".