Woody Species Diversity in Forest Plantations in a Mountainous Region of Beijing, China: Effects of Sampling Scale and Species Selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of forest plantations in biodiversity conservation has gained more attention in recent years. However, most work on evaluating the diversity of forest plantations focuses only on one spatial scale; thus, we examined the effects of sampling scale on diversity in forest plantations. We designed a hierarchical sampling strategy to collect data on woody species diversity in planted pine (Pinus tabuliformis Carr.), planted larch (Larix principis-rupprechtii Mayr.), and natural secondary deciduous broadleaf forests in a mountainous region of Beijing, China. Additive diversity partition analysis showed that, compared to natural forests, the planted pine forests had a different woody species diversity partitioning pattern at multi-scales (except the Simpson diversity in the regeneration layer), while the larch plantations did not show multi-scale diversity partitioning patterns that were obviously different from those in the natural secondary broadleaf forest. Compare to the natural secondary broadleaf forests, the effects of planted pine forests on woody species diversity are dependent on the sampling scale and layers selected for analysis. Diversity in the planted larch forest, however, was not significantly different from that in the natural forest for all diversity components at all sampling levels. Our work demonstrated that the species selected for afforestation and the sampling scales selected for data analysis alter the conclusions on the levels of diversity supported by plantations. We suggest that a wide range of scales should be considered in the evaluation of the role of forest plantations on biodiversity conservation.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".