MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1860682477 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2014-0387

Historical (1860) forest structure in ponderosa pine forests of the northern Front Range, Colorado

2015· article· en· W1860682477 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Peter M. Brown, Mike A. Battaglia, Paula J. Fornwalt, Benjamin M. Gannon, Laurie S. Huckaby, Chad W. Julian, Antony S. Cheng

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBasal areaForestryDiameter at breast heightForest structureRange (aeronautics)Pinus <genus>GeographyEnvironmental scienceDendrochronologyForest dynamicsClimate changeStand developmentEcologyCanopyBiologyBotanyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Management of many dry conifer forests in western North America is focused on promoting resilience to future wildfires, climate change, and land use impacts through restoration of historical patterns of forest structure and disturbance processes. Historical structural data provide models for past resilient conditions that inform the design of silvicultural treatments and help to assess the success of treatments at achieving desired conditions. We used dendrochronological data to reconstruct nonspatial and spatial forest structure at 1860 in fourteen 0.5 ha plots in lower elevation (∼1900–2100 m) ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa Douglas ex P. Lawson &amp; C. Lawson) forests across two study areas in northern Colorado. Fires recorded by trees in two or more plots from 1667 to 1859 occurred, on average, every 8–15 years depending on scale of analysis. The last fire recorded in two or more plots occurred in 1859. Reconstructed 1860 stand structures were very diverse, with tree densities ranging from 0 to 320 trees·ha −1 , basal areas ranging from 0.0 to 17.1 m 2 ·ha −1 , and quadratic mean diameters ranging from 0.0 to 57.5 cm. All trees in 1860 were ponderosa pine. Trees were significantly aggregated in 62% of plots in which spatial patterns could be estimated, with 10% to 90% of trees mainly occurring in groups of two to eight (maximum, 26). Current stands based on living trees with a diameter at breast height of ≥4 cm are more dense (range, 175–1010 trees·ha −1 ) with generally increased basal areas (4.4 to 23.1 m 2 ·ha −1 ) and smaller trees (quadratic mean diameters ranging from 15.7 to 28.2 cm) and contain greater proportions of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) and Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum Sarg.). This is the first study to provide detailed quantitative metrics to guide restoration prescription development, implementation, and evaluation in these and similar ponderosa pine forests in northern Colorado.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.770
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations54
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207