Persistence of ground-layer bryophytes in a structural retention experiment: initial effects of level and pattern of overstory retention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined first-year responses of forest-floor bryophytes to structural retention harvests at four locations in western Washington. Treatments represented a range of retention levels (100%, 75%, 40%, and 15% of original basal area) and spatial patterns (dispersed vs. aggregated in 1 ha patches). Declines in bryophyte cover and species' frequencies were comparably large at 40% and 15% retention. Retention pattern had little effect on the magnitude of decline, although declines in richness tended to be greater in aggregated treatments. Changes in cover were small within forest aggregates (comparable to controls). However, richness declined relative to controls within aggregates at 15% retention; rarer taxa in these exposed patches may be susceptible to edge effects. Declines in species' frequencies and richness were consistently greater in "clear-cut" areas of aggregated treatments than in dispersed retention; liverworts were particularly sensitive to harvest. In cut areas, bryophytes responded positively to cover of understory vegetation and negatively to logging slash. The positive correlation of richness (but not cover) to tree basal area may reflect the contribution of tree boles to persistence of rarer corticolous species. Our results suggest that conservation of bryophytes in forests managed with structural retention will require large retention patches and dispersed trees at levels considerably higher than current retention standards.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".