MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972730229 · doi:10.1139/x08-003

Biophysical controls on surface fuel litterfall and decomposition in the northern Rocky Mountains, USA

2008· article· en· W1972730229 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Robert E. Keane

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlant litterEnvironmental scienceLitterEcosystemContext (archaeology)Vegetation (pathology)CanopyForestryBasal areaForest ecologyEcologyGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Litterfall and decomposition rates of the organic matter that comprise forest fuels are important to fire management, because they define fuel treatment longevity and provide parameters to design, test, and validate ecosystem models. This study explores the environmental factors that control litterfall and decomposition in the context of fuel management for several major forest types in the northern Rocky Mountains (Idaho and Montana), USA. Litterfall was measured for more than 10 years using semiannual collections of six fine fuel components (fallen foliage, twigs, branches, large branches, logs, and all other canopy material) collected from a network of 1 m 2 litterfall traps installed at 28 plots across seven sites. Decomposition of foliage, twigs, branches, and large branches were measured using litter bags installed on five of the seven sites. Measured litterfall and decomposition rates were correlated with major environmental and vegetation variables using regression analysis. Annual foliage litterfall rates ranged from 0.057 kg·m –2 ·year –1 for dry Pinus ponderosa Dougl. ex Laws. stands to 0.144 kg·m –2 ·year –1 on mesic Thuja plicata Donn ex D. Don stands and were correlated with the vegetation characteristics of leaf area index, basal area, and tree height (r > 0.5), whereas decomposition rates were correlated with the environmental gradients of temperature and relative humidity (r > 0.4).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.651
Threshold uncertainty score0.938

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations74
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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