Abundance and habitat associations of disjunct and regionally rare populations of Leucorrhinia glacialis and L. hudsonica in the Appalachian Mountains (Odonata: Libellulidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leucorrhinia glacialis and L. hudsonica are boreal anisopterans common in Canada and the north-eastern USA but are rare in central Appalachia, where they are isolated at the extreme southern edge of their range. Adult and larval anisopteran surveys were conducted at 24 wetlands in central Appalachia to determine the number of populations and habitat associations of L. glacialis and L. hudsonica. A mark-recapture study at wetlands containing either of the two target species was conducted to estimate the population size and daily survival. Cormack-Jolly-Seber (CJS) and Jolly-Seber analyses were conducted for the populations of L. glacialis and L. hudsonica, and multivariate techniques explored habitat and community associations. Leucorrhinia hudsonica were found in three wetlands, with the largest population estimated at 34 individuals. Leucorrhinia glacialis were found in two wetlands, with one population estimated at 351 and the other being too large (i.e., not enough recaptures) to apply CJS methods. All wetlands containing populations of L. glacialis and L. hudsonica were permanent, acidic, and fishless, and dispersal from their natal ponds was rarely observed. Most of the wetlands containing these species were created by beaver, with some ponds rapidly shrinking due to a lack of dam maintenance. The isolation and rarity of habitats supporting L. glacialis and L. hudsonica in this region, coupled with the species' poor dispersal abilities and apparent reliance on beaver, suggests an uncertain future for these locally rare anisopterans. The protection of these rare habitats and populations, along with possible translocation efforts and beaver management, may increase these species' chances of persistence.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".