TCP Final Report: Measuring the Effects of Stand Age and Soil Drainage on Boreal Forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This was a 6-year research project in the Canadian boreal forest that focused on using field observations to understand how boreal forest carbon balance changes during recovery from catastrophic forest fire. The project began with two overarching goals: (1) to develop techniques that would all the year round operation of 7 eddy covariance sites in a harsh environment at a much lower cost than had previously been possible, and (2) to use these measurements to determine how carbon balance changes during secondary succession. The project ended in 2006, having accomplished its primary objectives. Key contributions to DOE during the study were: (1) Design, test, and demonstrate a lightweight, fully portable eddy flux system that exploits several economies of scale to allow AmeriFlux-quality measurements of CO{sub 2} exchange at many sites for a large reduction in cost (Goulden et al. 2006). (2) Added seven year-round sites to AmeriFlux, at a relatively low per site cost using the Eddy Covariance Mesonet approach (Goulden et al. 2006). These data are freely available on the AmeriFlux web site. (3) Tested and rejected the conventional wisdom that forests lose large amounts of carbon during the first decade after disturbance, then accumulate large amounts of carbon for {approx}several decades, and then return to steady state in old age. Rather, we found that boreal forests recovers quickly from fire and begins to accumulate carbon within {approx}5 years after disturbance. Additionally, we found no evidence that carbon accumulation declines in old stands (Goulden et al. 2006, Goulden et al. in prep). (4) Tested and rejected claims based on remote sensing observations (for example, Myneni et al 1996 using AVHRR) that regions of boreal forest have changed markedly in the last 20 years. Rather, we assembled a much richer data set than had been used in the past (eddy covariance observations, tree rings, biomass, NPP, AVHRR, and LandSat), which we used to establish that the forests in our study region have remained largely constant over the last 20 years after accounting for the effects of stand age and succession (McMillen et al. in review).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".