Integrative ecological and molecular analysis indicate high diversity and strict elevational separation of canopy beetles in tropical mountain forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tropical mountain forests contribute disproportionately to terrestrial biodiversity but little is known about insect diversity in the canopy and how it is distributed between tree species. We sampled tree-specific arthropod communities from 28 trees by canopy fogging and analysed beetle communities which were first morphotyped and then identified by their DNA barcodes. Our results show that communities from forests at 1100 and 1700 m a.s.l. are almost completely distinct. Diversity was much lower in the upper forest while community structure changed from many rare, less abundant species to communities with a pronounced dominance structure. We also found significantly higher beta-diversity between trees at the lower than higher elevation forest where community similarity was high. Comparisons on tree species found at both elevations reinforced these results. There was little species overlap between sites indicating limited elevational ranges. Furthermore, we exploited the advantage of DNA barcodes to patterns of haplotype diversity in some of the commoner species. Our results support the advantage of fogging and DNA barcodes for community studies and underline the need for comprehensive research aimed at the preservation of these last remaining pristine forests.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".