MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2309554912 · doi:10.14288/1.0093887

Ecosystem units, their classification, interpretation and mapping in the University of British Columbia research forest

2010· article· en· W2309554912 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Karel Klinka

Notice bibliographique

RevuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueRangeland and Wildlife Management
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésForest ecologyEcosystemGeographyInterpretation (philosophy)Environmental resource managementForestryEcologyEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceBiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

A synecological study was conducted at the University of British Columbia Research Forest, Haney, British Columbia. The objectives of the" study were to classify and map forest ecosystems occurring in the area and to provide interpretations as to their use for land and silvi-cultural management. One hundred and fifty eight sample plots were established, each plot representing a sample of an ecosystem individual—biogeocoenosis. Following an analysis of the vegetation and its environment by the phytosociological techniques of the Zürich-Montpellier School as applied by Krajina, and the associated soils, a synthesis of similar plots into abstract units was carried out. The ecosystems were classified according to the system of synecological classification developed by Krajina and his students. Biogeoclimatic and synsystematic units were floristically and environmentally described emphasizing environmental factors and processes which control their distribution and development. Lower synsystematic units were grouped to form management units for which relatively uniform management procedures and techniques could be proposed. By analyzing the properties of vegetation and soils, suitability of ecosystems for wood production was assessed along with suggested silvicultural systems for thirteen management units. The classification was verified by investigations to substantiate ecological significance of the differentiated units. These involved chemical analysis of seepage water, foliage samples of under-story vegetation, and humus layers in the Coastal western hemlock biogeoclimatic zone. Chemical concentrations in foliage of understory vegetation increased progressively along moisture and nutrient gradients. Characteristic species for the Pseudotsugetalia menziesii had the lowest concentrations, those for the Tsugetalia heterophyllae had the intermediate concentrations and finally those for the Thujetalia plicatae had the highest concentrations of metallic elements and nitrogen. The characteristic species for the ecosystem units appear to have a high indicative value in assessing their edatopes. Chemical concentrations in seepage water were found to vary with the season, forest stand type (based on age) and biogeocoenotic units. Seepage water, supplying the ecosystems with additional moisture and nutrients, affects soil development through increased decomposition and mineralization of organic matter. These habitats consequently support very productive ecosystems of the Thujetalia plicatae. Thus, seepage water can be considered as a part of the ecosystem which counteracts leaching. The results of these analyses supported the applied methods of synecological classification. The distinguished ecosystem units can be further characterized by specific indices of properties which were not used in the original classification procedure. On the basis of these synecological studies a synecological map of the 5,151 ha UBC Research Forest at the scale 1:12,000 was prepared by a combination of ground survey and aerial photographic interpretation. Ecosystem type was employed as a mapping unit. The mapping units were designated by selected colors and numerical symbols. In conclusion, it became apparent that the classification of ecosystems into the system of synecological classification, using the described methods, can provide not only a better understanding of forest ecosystems but also a basis on which to differentiate management practices.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,480
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,499

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,018
Tête enseignante GPT0,186
Écart entre enseignants0,169 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations26
Publié2010
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Même sujetRangeland and Wildlife ManagementTravaux en français237 207