MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3034605441 · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-66752-w

Effects of prescribed fire and social insects on saproxylic beetles in a subtropical forest

2020· article· en· W3034605441 on OpenAlexaff
Michael D. Ulyshen, Andrea Lucky, Timothy T. Work

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersU.S. Forest ServiceClemson UniversityU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsSubtropicsEcologyTropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forestsBiologyZoologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We tested the immediate and delayed effects of a low-intensity prescribed fire on beetles, ants and termites inhabiting log sections cut from moderately decomposed pine trees in the southeastern United States. We also explored co-occurrence patterns among these insects. Half the logs were placed at a site scheduled for a prescribed fire while the rest were assigned to a neighboring site not scheduled to be burned. We then collected insects emerging from sets of logs collected immediately after the fire as well as after 2, 6, 26 and 52 weeks. The fire had little effect on the number of beetles and ants collected although beetle richness was significantly higher in burned logs two weeks after the fire. Both beetle and ant communities differed between treatments, however, with some species preferring either burned or unburned logs. We found no evidence that subterranean termites (Reticulitermes) were influenced by the fire. Based on co-occurrence analysis, positive associations among insect species were over two times more common than negative associations. This difference was significant overall as well for ant × beetle and beetle × beetle associations. Relatively few significant positive or negative associations were detected between termites and the other insect taxa, however.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.174 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207