Settling in or passing through: differentiating between wood‐boring beetle visitation and colonization after a dead wood pulse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To determine the effect of resource pulses on animal communities, it is important to differentiate the species colonizing the resource substrate from the ones simply moving through the system. In a manipulative field study, we surveyed the response of wood‐boring beetles ( C oleoptera) to the small debris produced by commercial thinning operations in white spruce plantations using two methods. First, we sampled the wood‐boring beetles visiting the plantations using flight intercept traps. Then, at the end of the resource pulse in fresh woody debris, we documented the abundance of beetle emergence holes on vertical and horizontal woody debris, which indicate wood‐boring beetle colonization. Results demonstrated that the small horizontal debris generated by commercial thinning were used by saproxylic beetles but were not a preferred resource for colonization, by contrast with vertical dead wood. Only small‐body beetles colonized the horizontal debris and most debris were not colonized. Vertical dead wood, even if present in relatively small quantity when compared to horizontal dead wood, was a major determinant of beetle colonization and community composition. Biomass removal was shown to have a strong detrimental impact on beetle colonization rates. Based on these results, we suggest that most of the saproxylic species trapped after commercial thinning operations were attracted in response to the initial pulse of resource but did not actually colonize the debris from thinning. Thus, we stress the importance of distinguishing between species visitation and colonization following a resource pulse when sampling relies on indirect trapping methods.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".