MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975444424 · doi:10.1139/x04-189

Prescribed fire effects on the herbaceous layer of mixed-oak forests

2005· article· en· W1975444424 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Todd F. Hutchinson, Ralph E. J. Boerner, Steve Sutherland, Elaine Kennedy Sutherland, Marilyn Ortt, Louis R. Iverson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Forest Service
KeywordsVegetation (pathology)Environmental scienceHerbaceous plantSpecies richnessFire ecologyForbFire regimePrescribed burnEcologyOrdinationWoody plantForestryAgronomyGeographyBiologyGrasslandEcosystem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1994, a multidisciplinary project was established to study the effects of prescribed fire on oak forests in southern Ohio. Here we describe the herbaceous layer response to fires over a 5-year period. In four study sites, treatments imposed were unburned, periodic (1996 and 1999), and annual (1996–1999) fires. Sample plots (n = 108) were stratified by an integrated moisture index. Species' frequencies were recorded annually, and a total of 452 species (97% native) were documented. Though species composition was significantly affected by fire, the effects were shown by ordination to be small in magnitude relative to overall compositional variation. Burned areas developed greater small-scale species richness as grasses, summer forbs, and seed-banking species increased in frequency; however, these changes were also not large in magnitude. Though a few species increased substantially via germination after fire, most common species exhibited frequency increases or decreases of <10% on burned units. Fire effects on vegetation were largely similar between annual and periodic burns and also among integrated moisture index classes. Direct fire effects on vegetation were limited by the dormant-season timing of burns and the resprouting of woody plants. Indirect effects were limited, as fires caused relatively minor changes in forest structure and resource availability in these long-unburned forests.

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)0.003
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 score0.453
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations166
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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