Biodiversity of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and spiders (Araneae) across a tallgrass prairie – aspen forest ecotone in southern Manitoba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The objective of this study was to assess the similarities and differences between selected bioindicator groups within tallgrass prairie and adjacent aspen forest. Based on pitfall trapping from 1998 to 2000, species richness and abundance of ground beetles and spiders were examined across a tallgrass prairie – aspen forest ecotone located near Winnipeg, Manitoba. The abundance of spiders and ground beetles was higher in the forested portion of the transect than in the prairie section. There were 639 specimens of ground beetles collected, representing 53 species; 19 species were found only on the prairie, 19 species were found only in the forest, and 15 species were found in both habitats, although the abundance of most species was too low to confidently assign them to either habitat type. Excluding single records in any sampling year yielded 9 prairie species, 5 forest species, and 10 species found in both aspen forest and tallgrass prairie. The five most abundant species of ground beetles were Agonum placidum (Say), Pterostichus caudicalis (Say), P. femoralis (Kirby), P. melanarius (Illiger), and Synuchus impunctatus (Say). There were 4499 specimens of spiders collected, representing 92 species; 25 species were found only in the prairie, 15 species were unique to the aspen forest, and 52 species were found in both habitats. Excluding single records in any sampling year yielded 26 prairie species, 15 forest species, and 22 species found in both habitats. The five most abundant species of spiders were Pardosa moesta Banks, P. distincta (Blackwall), Agroeca ornata Banks, Centromerus sylvaticus (Blackwall), and Alopecosa aculeata (Clerck). Our study concurs with other studies in demonstrating that there are distinct assemblages of both groups of predators in each of the two habitat types.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".