MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167495543 · doi:10.4039/n07-ls03

Rove beetles (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae) in northern Nearctic forests

2008· article· en· W2167495543 on OpenAlexaffabout
Greg R. Pohl, David W. Langor, Jan Klimaszewski, Timothy T. Work, Pierre Paquin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Entomologist · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNearctic ecozoneEcologyTaigaAbundance (ecology)BiodiversityHabitatBorealDisturbance (geology)GeographyMicrositeBiologyBotanyTaxonomy (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rove beetles are useful subjects for Nearctic forest biodiversity work because they are abundant, diverse, and easily collected, and have strong habitat affinities. Excellent identification keys exist for most groups, although there is a dearth of ecological and life-history information. There is considerable variation in species composition and abundance within the active summer season and in abundance from year to year. Community composition varies among larger geographical regions and to a lesser extent among forest types in more localized areas. Within the Nearctic boreal forest there are significant differences between beetle communities from the eastern and western portions. For the most part, the same species tend to dominate rove beetle communities in the western boreal forest. At the landscape level there are differences in rove beetle communities along successional gradients. In the boreal forest the communities of younger aspen-dominated and older conifer-dominated stands are somewhat distinct, with intermediate-aged stands containing a mix of the two communities. At the ecosite and microsite level there is significant variation, which remains poorly understood. Fire is the dominant mode of disturbance in the Nearctic boreal forest. It has a profound effect on rove beetles by destroying the forest communities and resetting the successional trajectory to the earliest stages. The burn pattern results in a patchwork of different communities at various stages in the successional cycle. In contrast to fire, forest harvesting does not directly destroy the rove beetle community, but to a large extent it destroys the forest habitat. This results in a unique rove beetle community characterized by a mix of forest species and open-ground specialists, and overall high diversity in this period of flux. In the years after harvesting, the rove beetle community goes through successional changes and becomes more similar to the forest community, but it skips the early postfire stage and proceeds along the successional trajectory more rapidly than after fire. In at least one forest type in western Canada, the post-fire and post-harvest communities, though similar, have not converged after 29 years. Other less direct effects of harvesting on rove beetles are a decrease in the proportion of the land base suitable for communities associated with older successional stages; alteration of forests by post-harvest site preparations and planting of exotic tree species; edge and fragmentation effects that are detrimental to the remaining forest surrounding harvested areas; and an influx of exotic arthropod species with affinities for disturbed sites. More information is needed on the habitat affinities of individual species. It is recommended that future work explore the effects of post-harvest forestry activities, fragmentation, and edges on rove beetles in forested habitats. As well, such studies should consider the effects on beetles of riparian zones and wetlands.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.373
Threshold uncertainty score0.636

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations48
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian EntomologistSame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207