MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987566720 · doi:10.1890/12-0621.1

Estimating fire interval bounds using vital attributes: implications of uncertainty and among‐population variability

2013· article· en· W1987566720 on OpenAlexaff
Carl R. Gosper, Suzanne M. Prober, Colin J. Yates

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Applications · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsDepartment of Environment and Conservation
FundersCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
KeywordsTraitRange (aeronautics)EcologyInterval (graph theory)Fire regimeEcosystemPopulationStatisticsEnvironmental scienceBiodiversityBiologyMathematicsComputer scienceDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Identifying the range of appropriate fire return intervals is crucial for ecosystem management in fire-prone environments. Plant vital attributes and changes in their associated trait values with time since fire are important indicators of suitable fire interval bounds to conserve biodiversity. However, using vital attributes to derive prescriptions for acceptable fire intervals remains challenging due to (1) uncertainty regarding how traits are best measured, (2) uncertainty in the acceptable ranges of trait values to avoid local extinctions, and (3) potential for variability among populations in the time taken postfire to reach trait threshold values. Using a time-since-fire gradient in contrasting mallee and mallee-heath vegetation types of southwestern Australia, we calculate, compare, and aggregate fire interval bound predictions from nine serotinous non-resprouters and seven serotinous resprouters across these three sources of uncertainty or variation. Relationships between time since fire and both trait measures reflecting minimum fire interval (mean number of closed fruit per plant or proportion of plants with closed fruit) were typically significant, had reasonable goodness of fit, and showed similar patterns of change with time since fire. Significant relationships reflecting maximum fire interval were less frequent but were more commonly detected using direct measures of mortality than using evidence for decline in reproductive potential. Of the two sources of uncertainty, trait value threshold selection caused more substantial differences in estimated interval bounds than trait measurement method. Variation between populations increased with greater estimated minimum interval length and, in some species, rendered interval estimates of limited practical value. On balance, we conclude that measures of vital attribute traits offer a transparent approach for estimating fire interval bounds at the plant community level, but selection of trait value thresholds is in need of stronger biological justification in their application. Further, variation between populations should be explicitly sampled if fire interval estimates are to be applied across the landscape.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.250
Teacher spread0.236 · 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.

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

Citations32
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcological ApplicationsSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207