Biodiversity of saproxylic Coleoptera in 'old-growth' and managed forests in southeastern Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The species richness, abundance and composition of saproxylic Coleoptera was compared between 'old-growth' and mature-managed hemlock-hardwood forests in southeastern Ontario, Canada. Beetles were sampled weekly from 29 April until 3 October 2003 using large-area flight-intercept traps (FITs) and trunk-window traps (TTs). Analyses were conducted using the Fisher's alpha and Simpson's diversity indices, rarefaction, indicator species analysis and cluster analysis. A total of 11,888 fungivorous Coleoptera was collected from 11 families and 73 species (excluding Nitidulidae). Nitidulidae were analysed separately with traps yielding 2,129 sap beetles comprising 30 species. The species richness and abundance of fungivorous Coleoptera did not differ significantly between the two forest types. Conversely, the species abundance of nitidulid beetles was higher in managed forests and the species richness higher in 'old-growth' forests. Several species were strongly associated with either managed or 'old-growth' forest types. Certain species such as Anisotoma inops (Leiodidae) and Glischrochilus sanguinolentus (Nitidulidae) were much more frequently caught in TTs than in FITs.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".