Reduced Diversity and Relative Abundance of Terrestrial Snails in a Red Pine Plantation Compared with a Surrounding Northern Red Oak – Large-toothed Aspen Woods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Red Pine (Pinus resinosa Aiton) plantation and adjacent Northern Red Oak (Quercus rubra L.) – Large-toothed Aspen (Populus grandidentata Michx.) woods, both of which developed from a savannah scrub beginning approximately 60 years ago, were compared with regard to terrestrial snail diversity and abundance. The comparison involved a 30-minute search of ten 1-m2 quadrats at ten sites in each habitat. In the Northern Red Oak – Large-toothed Aspen woodland, 13 species and 661 individuals were recorded, whereas, in the Red Pine plantation, six species and 24 individuals were recorded. In the Northern Red Oak – Large-toothed Aspen woodland, the most characteristic and abundant species was Novisuccinea ovalis (Say, 1817), which was present in 74 of the 100 quadrats and was represented by 460 individuals. In the pine plantation, the most common species was Zonitoides arboreus (Say, 1816), which was present in 16 quadrats and was represented by 17 individuals. This species was the second most common in the Northern Red Oak – Large-toothed Aspen woodland where 70 individuals were found in 34 quadrats. In both habitats, Z. arboreus was associated with downed wood. Other species occurring in more than 15% of quadrats in the Northern Red Oak –Large-toothed Aspen woodland were Strobilops labyrinthicus (Say, 1817), Glyphyalinia indentata (Say, 1823), and Euche motrema fraternum (Say, 1824). Although a lower number and diversity of terrestrial snails in the conifer plantation was expected, the contrast was greater than anticipated. The estimated abundance of 46 000 N. ovalis per hectare suggests the potential importance of these medium-sized snails in the relatively dry Northern Red Oak – Large-toothed Aspen ecosystem.
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 | 0.000 | 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".