Effects of Malaise trap spacing on species richness and composition of terrestrial arthropod bulk samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Malaise trap is a popular device for assessing diverse terrestrial arthropod communities because it collects large samples with modest effort. A number of factors influence its collection efficiency, placement being one of them. For instance, when designing larger biotic surveys using arrays of Malaise traps we need to know the optimal distance between individual traps that maximises observable species richness and community composition. We examined the influence of spacing between Malaise traps by metabarcoding samples from two field experiments at a site in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. For one experiment, we used two trap pairs deployed at weekly increasing distances (3 m increments from 3 to 30 m). The second experiment involved a total of 10 traps set up in a row at 3 m distance intervals for three consecutive weeks. Results show that community similarity of samples decreases over distance between traps. The amount of species shared between trap pairs drops considerably at about 18 m trap-to-trap distance. This change can be observed across all major taxonomic groups and for two different habitat types (grassland and forest). Large numbers of OTUs found only once within samples cause rather large dissimilarity between distance pairs even at close proximity. This could be caused by a large number of transient species from adjacent habitats which arrive at the trap through passive transport, as well as capture of rare taxa, which end up in different traps by chance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".