Saproxylic Insect Communities in Boreal Mixedwoods of Northeastern Ontario as a Function of Variation in Woody Debris Quality and Quantity and Sampling Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Saproxylic insects rely on dead or dying wood at some point in their development and appear to be sensitive to forest management. In 2005 and 2006, I sampled saproxylic insects in mixedwood boreal forests in northeastern Ontario to assess effects of: 1) different logging practices, 2) variations in woody debris (WD) qualities, and 3) different sampling methods. I also compared insect communities between heavily decayed WD and soil. Although I collected data on all arthropod orders, I focused on the families of the Diptera and parasitic Hymenoptera and the morphospecies of the Scelionidae and Diapriidae. These insects showed clear responses to the WD quality treatments, but not to the different logging treatments. A few families were affected by ex situ sampling. I also found that the faunas of soil and WD are rather distinct from each other. This study shows that WD is a source of forest biodiversity. Consequently, sustainable forest management will rely on studies like this to conserve and maintain the biodiversity of Canada's largest group of eco-zones.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".