Performance of two arboreal pitfall trap designs in sampling cursorial spiders from tree trunks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tree trunks link the forest floor and higher canopy layers, thus constituting an important habitat element for many arthropod species, including spiders living in the canopy. We sampled spiders moving on tree trunks in the boreal forest using two trap designs referred to as “bottle traps” (BT) and “cup traps” (CT) placed on both trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michaux) and white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) trees of similar DBH (diameter at breast height). Over an average of 83.5 ± 6.3 days/trap (48 traps), we collected a total 333 spiders, representing 13 families and 33 species. Clubiona canadensis Emerton 1890 (Clubionidae), Callobius bennetti (Blackwall 1846) (Amaurobiidae), Pocadicnemis americana Millidge 1976 (Linyphiidae), and Orodrassus canadensis Platnick & Shadab 1975 (Gnaphosidae) were the most commonly collected species, representing more than 60% of the total catch. Twenty eight species and 285 individuals were collected by BTs compared to 18 species and 48 individuals by CTs. Catches in BTs included 15 unique species, whereas five species were unique in CT catches. BTs are easier to transport and deploy, they catch more spiders per trap, and appear to more efficiently sample spider diversity. Thus we recommend the use of BTs to effectively sample wandering spiders on tree trunks; however, the use of both designs could increase understanding about the role of tree trunks as structural features linking forest canopies to the ground layers below.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".