Some Wild Canadian Orchids Benefit from Woodland Hiking Trails - and the Implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To clarify the impact that trails have on orchids we compared the occurrence of orchids on the lightly trampled edges of bare trails, with the occurrence of orchids in the surrounding woodland and noted the degree of disturbance. A two-way mixed analysis of variance, using six trails from across Canada, indicated that location by distance strata interaction was lacking. Orchid densities were consistently higher within a few meters of the bare portion of a trail than further away. The width of the disturbance gradient for two well-used trails in parks in Bruce County, Ontario, was determined with regression to be within 1 m from the edge of the bare portion of the trail. Calypso bulbosa var. americana on trails in in Alberta, Epipactis helleborine and Goodyera oblongifolia on trails in Ontario, Goodyera repens on trails in Northwest Territories and all native orchids (cumulatively) on trails on Flowerpot Island, Ontario demonstrated consistent and significant increased abundance within the trail disturbance gradients in comparison to their occurrence in the surrounding forest. More flowering plants of Goodyera oblongifolia and mature capsules of Epipactis helleborine occurred in the trail disturbance gradient than beyond suggesting a beneficial impact on fecundity. The disturbance gradient effect likely includes light trampling which reduces competition, compacts soil, and exposes mineral soil. The effect also includes increased light and microclimate differences near to the path. Landscape managers should recognize that in some situations orchids may benefit greatly from trails and that trails may be better considered as a benefit than as a problem.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".