MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972531493 · doi:10.1139/x09-035

Temporal dynamics of large woody debris in small streams of the Alberta foothills, Canada

2009· article· en· W1972531493 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Sonya Powell, Lori D. Daniels, Trevor A. Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Canadian institutionsOntario Forest Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLarge woody debrisCoarse woody debrisSTREAMSRiparian zoneDendrochronologyEcologyRiparian forestSnagEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)Forest dynamicsFoothillsDebrisGeologyHabitatBiologyOceanographyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large woody debris (LWD) is a key link between riparian forests and streams; however, the temporal dynamics of in-stream wood remains poorly quantified. Using dendrochronology, we evaluated the dynamics of five Pinus -dominated and five Picea -dominated riparian forests in the foothills of Alberta and cross-dated the ring widths of 186 pieces of LWD. Time since death of LWD ranged from 2 to 143 years, with maximums of 86 and 143 years for Pinus and Picea, respectively. Recruitment of Pinus LWD was influenced by stand-replacing fires followed by self-thinning about 40 years after stand establishment. In uneven-aged Picea-dominated forests, tree mortality and LWD recruitment were due to fine-scale disturbances. Time since death increased significantly with decay and position classes, which resulted in changes in LWD function through time. LWD persisted in the bridge position for about 30 years. Bridged LWD was least decayed, was significantly longer, and had greater volume than LWD in other positions. LWD remained in partial bridge and loose positions about 15 years and >80 years when submerged in water and buried in sediment. Given the persistence of LWD, we conclude that management that alters wood abundance and recruitment has short- and long-term implications for the structure and function of small streams.

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)0.001
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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations14
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicHydrology and Sediment Transport ProcessesFrench-language works237,207