Directional change in upland tundra plant communities 20‐30 years after seismic exploration in the Canadian low‐arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Question: What is the disturbance response of low‐arctic plant communities two to three decades after seismic exploration. Location: Mackenzie River Delta, low‐arctic, northwestern Canada. Methods: Plant communities in two upland tundra vegetation types were compared between winter seismic lines, created between 1970 and 1986, and adjacent “reference” tundra. Also, we used aerial surveys to quantify the total area impacted by visible linear features. Results: Vascular plant cover was significantly higher, and lichen cover significantly lower, on seismic lines than in reference tundra. The increase in vascular plant cover was attributable to deciduous shrubs and graminoids. There were significant differences in plant community composition between seismic lines and reference tundra but no differences in species diversity or richness. Betula glandulosa and Arctagrostis latifolia were significant indicator species for seismic lines, while Saussurea angustifolia was a significant indicator for reference tundra. Based on the aerial surveys, these effects apply to at least 90% of seismic lines from two‐dimensional programs in these habitat types during the 1970s. Conclusions: Vegetation composition and structure on 20‐30‐year‐old seismic lines differs from reference upland tundra despite no persistent differences in organic layer depth or depth to permafrost. We propose that this reflects: (1) successional redevelopment following changes in soil conditions and nutrient availability arising from the disturbance, and/or (2) disturbance‐initiated succession towards a community reflecting current climatic conditions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".