Observations and assessment of forest carbon dynamics following disturbance in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disturbance processes of various types substantially modify ecosystem carbon dynamics both temporally and spatially, and constitute a fundamental part of larger landscape‐level dynamics. Forests typically lose carbon for several years to several decades following severe disturbance, but our understanding of the duration and dynamics of post‐disturbance forest carbon fluxes remains limited. Here we capitalize on a recent North American Carbon Program disturbance synthesis to discuss techniques and future work needed to better understand carbon dynamics after forest disturbance. Specifically, this paper addresses three topics: (1) the history, spatial distribution, and characteristics of different types of disturbance (in particular fire, insects, and harvest) in North America; (2) the integrated measurements and experimental designs required to quantify forest carbon dynamics in the years and decades after disturbance, as presented in a series of case studies; and (3) a synthesis of the greatest uncertainties spanning these studies, as well as the utility of multiple types of observations (independent but mutually constraining data) in understanding their dynamics. The case studies—in the southeast U.S., central boreal Canada, U.S. Rocky Mountains, and Pacific Northwest—explore how different measurements can be used to constrain and understand carbon dynamics in regrowing forests, with the most important measurements summarized for each disturbance type. We identify disturbance severity and history as key but highly uncertain factors driving post‐disturbance carbon source‐sink dynamics across all disturbance types. We suggest that imaginative, integrative analyses using multiple lines of evidence, increased measurement capabilities, shared models and online data sets, and innovative numerical algorithms hold promise for improved understanding and prediction of carbon dynamics in disturbance‐prone forests.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".