MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1967242629 · doi:10.1139/x04-100

Commercial tree regeneration 6 years after high-intensity burns in a seasonally dry forest in Bolivia

2004· article· en· W1967242629 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Deborah Kennard

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Forest Service
KeywordsVegetation (pathology)Regeneration (biology)Environmental sciencePrescribed burnShade toleranceIntensity (physics)Disturbance (geology)AgroforestryEcologyForestryBiologyGeographyCanopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of three site-preparation treatments (high-intensity burn, low-intensity burn, and mechanical cleaning with machetes and chainsaws) on the regeneration of commercial tree species, composition and structure of competing vegetation, and soil chemical and structural properties were evaluated in a seasonally dry forest in southeast Bolivia. Six years after controlled burns, the high-intensity burn treatment had the both the highest density and the tallest individuals of shade-intolerant commercial tree species. Competing vegetation was also less dominant in the high-intensity burn treatment relative to other treatments. However, high-intensity burns were not beneficial for commercial tree species with shade-tolerant or intermediate regeneration. Soil analyses revealed that certain changes in soil texture and soil chemistry (e.g., Ca and Mg concentrations and cation exchange capacity) caused by high-intensity burns persisted 6 years after the fires. These findings confirm that this suite of shade-intolerant commercial species requires very intense disturbances for their regeneration. However, several ecological, economic, and social barriers currently preclude the management-scale application of prescribed fire in Bolivia. More research is needed on cost-effective treatments to improve regeneration.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations8
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicFire effects on ecosystems→French-language works237,207→