Effects of Beaver, Castor canadensis, herbivory on streamside vegetation in a northern Ontario watershed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effects of Beaver, Castor canadensis, herbivory on streamside vegetation in a northern Ontario watershed.Canadian Field-Naturalist 115(1): 9-21.Based on the life-form and their utility to Beavers (Castor canadensis), we classified the riparian plants around Beaver impoundments into five categories: Alder (Alnus spp.) -dam construction; Trembling Aspen (Populus tremuloides)primary food; White Birch (Betula papyrifera) and Willows (Salix spp.) -secondary foods; shrubs -occasionally used for food and dam construction; and conifers -occasionally used for dam construction.To study the influence of Beaver herbivory on shoreline woody plants, we randomly chose eight recently active (<5 years since establishment), seven recently abandoned (< 12 years since abandonment), and eight old abandoned (> 12 years since abandonment) dam sites.We found that Beavers concentrated the majority of their herbivory to within 20 m of the impoundment edge.Three explanations are proposed: (1) thermoregulatory restrictions; (2) directionally leaning trees within riparian habitats; and (3) reduction of predation risk.After 12+ years of abandonment, we found the Beaver's preferred food tree, the Trembling Aspen, had not re-established along streams adjacent to abandoned dam sites.In contrast, less desirable food trees and conifers showed increased recovery.If this selective herbivory continues unchecked, the riparian habitat along the Swanson River will become dominated by conifers and thus unsuitable for sustaining Beavers.We believe that fire is needed to rejuvenate the failing Trembling Aspen stocks.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".