Communities of soil mites (Acarina) in planted birch stands compared with natural forests in central Finland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the study was to compare the soil mite communities in anthropogenous birch stands of different origin with each other and with natural forests at the same latitude. Nine sites were investigated: three birch stands (Betula pendula Roth) planted ca. 30 years prior to the study after clear-cutting of spruce stands ("birch after spruce"), three birch stands planted ca. 30 years earlier on arable soil that had been under cultivation until reforestation ("birch after field"), and three natural deciduous forests. These were sampled twice, and microarthropods were extracted, counted, and identified. There were clear differences between birch stands established after spruce forest and after cultivation and between these and natural deciduous forests. The communities of birch after spruce were rather similar to those of natural spruce forests, but the population densities were lower. The populations in birch after field were generally very low. There were also conspicuous differences among replicates of the same kind of forests. All the dominant species in the study sites are common members of the forest soil fauna. The communities of birch after field could be characterized as impoverished forest communities. Soil pH and the removal of the litter layer by earthworms were regarded as the most important factors explaining the observed differences.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".