Response of Ground Beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) Field Populations to Four Years of Lepidoptera-Specific <I>Bt</I> Corn Production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pitfall traps were used to monitor populations of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in plots of corn grown in continuous cultivation during a 4-yr period (2000-2003). Treatments included transgenic corn expressing a Bt Cry protein with efficacy specific against Lepidoptera (Bt), conventional corn grown with insecticide application (I), and the same conventional cultivar grown without insecticide application (NI). Mixed-model analyses of variance were performed on pitfall captures of beetles combined across weeks to give seasonal sums. Effects of corn treatment were not detected (P > 0.05) on total beetle abundance or species richness in any year. Effects of corn treatment on individual taxa were detected (P < 0.05) for 3 of the 39 species-by-year combinations examined. Effects of near significance (P < 0.08) were detected for an additional two species. In 2001, captures of Amara farcta Leconte and Harpalus amputatus Say were lower in Bt plots than in I or NI plots. In 2003, captures of Amara apricaria (Paykull) and Amara carinata (Leconte) were higher in Bt plots than in I or NI plots. Also in 2003, captures of Poecilus scitulus Leconte were higher in I plots than in Bt or NI plots. These patterns were not repeated among years. Results of this study indicate that cultivation of Lepidoptera-specific Bt corn in southern Alberta does not appreciably affect ground beetle populations.
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 | 0.000 | 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".