Plant, herbivore and parasitoid community composition in native Nothofagaceae forests vs. exotic pine plantations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Converting natural areas into land used for production causes dramatic changes in the configuration of landscapes. Both the loss and fragmentation of native habitats contribute to biodiversity loss world‐wide and the consequent creation of artificial edges can have a significant influence on community assembly. The conservation value of plantation forests has been identified for specific species, but it is not clear whether exotic pine plantations can also be used for the preservation of native communities in general. We studied whether community composition of different trophic levels (plants, herbivorous caterpillars, parasitoids) changed across native Nothofagaceae forests to exotic pine plantations, and whether habitat edges affected communities differently depending on the forest type considered. To accomplish this, we sampled plants, herbivorous caterpillars and parasitoids in native Nothofagaceae and exotic pine plantation forests and compared community composition of each trophic level across habitats. We found that community composition of plants, herbivorous caterpillars and parasitoids differed significantly between native and exotic plantation forests, and that variation in the composition of the upper trophic levels was strongly dependent on variation in the composition of the lower trophic level. Moreover, differences in community composition were mostly the result of species turnover, suggesting that plantations are complementary habitats for some species, but cannot be a substitute habitat for all native forest species. Furthermore, edge effects had a strong impact on the composition of native communities, such that certain species were only present in the interior of the native habitat. Synthesis and applications . Large areas of native vegetation, where the interior remains intact, are essential to preserve species that are susceptible to edge effects and that cannot occupy other habitat types. Creating straight instead of winding edges could decrease the impact that plantations have on native forests. Furthermore, increasing the representativeness of native plant communities in exotic plantation forests would cascade up to higher consumer trophic levels, considerably increasing the conservation value of these commercial stands.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".