Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38054021›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2023

Ground beetle assemblages inhabiting various age classes of Norway spruce stands in north-eastern Poland.

Mariusz Nietupski, Agnieszka Kosewska, Emilia Ludwiczak

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mariusz NietupskiDepartment of Entomology, Phytopathology and Molecular Diagnostics, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Olsztyn, Poland.
Agnieszka KosewskaDepartment of Entomology, Phytopathology and Molecular Diagnostics, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Olsztyn, Poland.
Emilia LudwiczakDepartment of Entomology, Phytopathology and Molecular Diagnostics, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Olsztyn, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Assemblages of epigeic ground beetles living in Norway spruce forests in north-eastern Poland in three age ranges: young: 20-30 years (A); middle-aged: 40-50 years (B); old: 70-80 years (C) were investigated. In each age category, 4 plots with 5 Barber traps were set up. Ground beetle assemblages were compared in terms of their abundance, species richness, and the Shannon H' index value. Quantitative ecological description of the carabids captured in the analysed age-classes of Norway spruce forests was performed, and the values of the mean individual biomass (MIB) were calculated. To determine the correlation between mean individual biomass and abundance of various ecological groups of carabid beetles, the Spearman rank correlation coefficient was calculated. The assemblages of ground beetles living in the Norway spruce forests in north-eastern Poland were characterised by quite large species richness (44 species in total). There were significant differences in species richness among the different ages of Norway spruce forests. The oldest Norway spruce stands (70-80 years old) had a smaller number of species and specimens of ground beetles as well as the highest MIB values in comparison with the younger spruce forests A and B. The results revealed that high MIB values were positively correlated with the presence of large ground beetle species with higher moisture requirements. Lower values of the MIB index were due to the presence of smaller open habitat macropterous species, with the spring type of breeding and associated with open areas.

Indexed as

ColeopteraPiceaAnimalsEcosystemForestsPlant BreedingPolandAge of spruce standsCarabid beetlesMIBSpecies diversity

Identifiers

PMID38054021
PMCPMC10695117

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.