MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968754334 · doi:10.1139/x06-169

Changes in understory composition following catastrophic windthrow and salvage logging in a subalpine forest ecosystem

2006· article· en· W1968754334 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cristina M Rumbaitis del Rio

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of AgricultureU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
KeywordsWindthrowUnderstorySalvage loggingEnvironmental scienceLoggingVegetation (pathology)ForestryEcologyForest ecologyEcosystemGeographyBiologyCanopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Catastrophic windthrow and postdisturbance salvage logging each have the potential to profoundly influence understory vegetation communities. This study compared understory vegetation cover, composition, and diversity in Routt National Forest, a subalpine forest in northwestern Colorado that sustained a 10 000 ha blowdown in 1997 and was partially salvage logged in 1999. Understory and edaphic variables were measured in five heavily wind-disturbed Picea–Abies stands, five stands salvage logged 20 months after the blowdown, and five intact stands. Understory species cover and diversity were greater in blown down areas than in salvage-logged or control areas. Community composition of each treatment area was distinct and related to a gradient in organic soil depth, which reflected the severity of understory disturbance. Composition and diversity in blowdown areas relative to control areas stabilized in the 5 years following the blowdown, but vegetation cover continued to increase. Blowdown areas contained early and late successional species. Salvage-logged areas exhibited a shift towards graminoid dominance. This structural change could delay future conifer seedling establishment. The interaction among disturbance severity, understory vegetation composition, and regeneration dynamics should be considered in future decisions to salvage log similar areas because the long-term effects of salvage logging are unknown.

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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations64
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207