Quantitative and qualitative effects of a severe ice storm on an old-growth beech–maple forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comparing permanent plots censused in 1997 and again in 2005, we quantified the impact of a severe ice storm on forest composition and dynamics in an old-growth beech–maple forest in eastern Canada. Acer saccharum Marsh. and Fagus grandifolia Ehrh. accounted for 78% of stand basal area immediately before the January 1998 ice storm. By 2005, eight growing seasons after the ice storm, stand basal area had dropped from 49.1 m2/ha to 31.5 m2/ha, and total tree density (>1 cm diameter at breast height (DBH)) decreased from 6350 stems/ha to 3875 stems/ha. However, A. saccharum and F. grandifolia remained dominant, accounting for 74% of stand basal area. Detrended correspondence analysis of relative dominance ratios at each plot in 1997 and 2005 showed that community composition did not change much during this period for either understory (1 cm ≤ DBH < 10 cm) or canopy trees (DBH ≥ 10 cm). The ice storm did not lead to significant recruitment of saplings (DBH ≥ 1 cm), but appears to have only contributed more to the growth of already-established saplings. We conclude that the ice storm of 1998 substantially decreased stand basal area and stem density but did not act to change the overall species composition or tree diversity in this old-growth beech–maple forest.
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 | 0.000 | 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".