MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1847185987 · doi:10.1139/x2012-075

Linking deadwood-associated beetles and fungi with wood decomposition rates in managed black spruce forests<sup>1</sup>This article is one of a selection of papers from the International Symposium on Dynamics and Ecological Services of Deadwood in Forest Ecosystems.

2012· article· en· W1847185987 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jenna Jacobs, Timothy T. Work

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlack spruceBiologyEcologyPicea abiesMicroclimateBiodiversityBorealEcosystemTaiga

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deadwood-associated insects and saprotrophic fungi are principal agents of wood decomposition in boreal forest. Silvicultural treatments that alter microclimate and availability of deadwood likely affect composition and growth rates of both insect and fungal communities, leading to changes in wood decomposition rates. Here, we relate both saproxylic beetle and dominant polypore assemblages with woody decomposition rates and environmental variables in experimental partial cuts, clearcuts, and uncut controls using a series of causal models to determine the relationship between stand structure, biodiversity, and ecosystem function in black spruce ( Picea mariana (Mill.) BSP) forests. Overall beetle and fungal composition differed between uncut stands and harvested stands. Main effects of harvesting included large increases in wood-feeding beetles and the fungus Gloeophyllum sepiarium (Wul.:Fr.) Karst. We suggest that these species were promoted by specific alterations in microhabitat conditions of deadwood. Within clearcuts specifically, changes in species composition and significantly more fungal degree-days resulted in significantly higher decomposition rates. We concluded that levels of partial cutting in the range of 15%–20% retention were not sufficient to maintain predisturbance communities but were sufficient to maintain wood decomposition rates similar to uncut stands.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations45
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207