Carabid beetle communities after 18 years of conservation tillage and crop rotation in a cool humid climate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Agricultural practices affect the biotic and abiotic conditions that determine food and shelter for carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). We hypothesised that carabid communities would respond differently to 18 years of contrasted cropping practices in cereal-based rotations. We measured the effects of tillage (MP: moldboard plough; CP: chisel plough; NT: no-till) and previous crop sequence (cereal monoculture versus cereal–forage/cereal–oilseed rotation) on carabid beetle activity density, diversity, and community structure in corn (Zea maysLinnaeus, Poaceae) at La Pocatière, Québec, Canada. Carabid beetles were sampled monthly from May to September 2006, using pitfall traps. Although 19 carabid species were observed, assemblages were dominated byHarpalus rufipes(De Geer), particularly in the second half of the season. Multivariate analyses indicated a strong affinity of carabid species for the NT treatment throughout the season. Crop sequence and tillage had no effect on diversity (Shannon'sH′ ≤ 1.3) and evenness of carabid assemblage, but species richness and activity density were greater in NT than in tilled systems. Peak activity density of dominant species occurred at different times during the season, generally in accordance with preferred breeding season. Many species had greater activity density in NT than in tilled treatments. Because of their granivorous feeding habit, carabid populations such as that ofH. rufipescould be an important asset to NT, given the limited weed management options available for this system.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".