Effects of single-tree selection harvesting on hymenopteran and sapro- xylic insect assemblages in the canopy and understory of northern tem- perate forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Insects respond to changes in microhabitat caused by canopy disturbance, and thus can be used to examine the ecological impacts of harvesting. Single-tree selection harvesting is the most common silvicultural system used to emulate local small-scale natural disturbance and maintain uneven-aged forest structure in temperate forests. Here, we test for differences in richness, abundance, and composition of hymenopteran and saproxylic insect assemblages at four different taxon levels (selected insect orders; and all hymenopteran families, and braconid subfamilies and morphospecies) between the canopy and understory of unharvested and single-tree selection harvested sites in a northern temperate forest from central Canada. Harvesting had no effect on insect assemblage richness, composition or abundance at the three highest taxon levels (order, family and subfamily). Similarly, richness and abundance at the lowest-taxon level (braconid morphospecies) were similar, although composition differed slightly between unharvested and harvested stands. Insect assemblages were vertically stratified, with generally higher abundance (for Diptera, Hymenoptera, some hymenopteran families and braconid subfamilies) and richness (for braconid morphospecies) in the understory than the canopy. In particular, composition of the braconid morphospecies assemblage showed relatively low similarity between the understory and canopy. Single-tree selection harvesting appears to influ-ence wood-associated insect taxa only subtly through small changes in community composition at the lowest taxon level, and thus is recommended as a conservative approach for managing these northern temperate 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".