The effects of silvicultural disturbances on the diversity of seed-producing plants in the boreal mixedwood forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The practice of clear-cutting, followed by site preparing with mechanical equipment, planting a single tree species, and applying herbicides, has recently been cited as a procedure that creates monocultures in northern forests. Research on a trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) dominated mixedwood provided an opportunity to examine the potential of silvicultural activities to (i) create monocultures, (ii) create opportunities for the establishment of exotic plant species, and (iii) result in the loss of indigenous plant species. Detailed botanical surveys were conducted for up to 5 years post-treatment in four clearcuts that were mechanically site prepared, planted with a single conifer species, and released with either motor-manual, mechanical, or herbicide treatment. Species richness, abundance (foliar cover), diversity indices, and rank abundance diagrams indicate that the treatments had immediate effects, but none created a monoculture during the period of study. We conclude that the use of clear-cutting, mechanical site preparation, planting a single conifer species, followed by release with motor-manual cutting, mechanical cutting, or herbicide spraying, will not create monocultures in the conditions tested. While 37 exotic species were observed, none of them were tree or shrub species. In addition, no net loss of indigenous seed producing plants was detected. Missed strips and patches, which accounted for up to 25% of the sampled area, buffered treatment effects.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".