Measured differences in snow accumulation and melt among clearcut, juvenile, and mature forests in southern British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Quantification of the relationships between snow and forest cover, including its removal through logging, insects or disease and its regrowth, is a prerequisite to assessing the effects of forestry practices on streamflow from montane and boreal forest watersheds. Over a 3 year period, a juvenile and a juvenile‐thinned lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl.) stand, a mature mixed Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii Parry), subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt) and lodgepole pine stand, and a clearcut were intensively surveyed to quantify differences in snow water equivalent (SWE). Daily snowmelt, weather conditions, and the energy balance were measured during the first year of this study. The 1 April SWE was 32% and 14% less under the mature and juvenile forests respectively than in the clearcut. No significant differences in peak SWE were measured between the juvenile and juvenile‐thinned stands. Continuous snowmelt lysimeter measurements showed that snowmelt began earlier, accumulated more rapidly, and disappeared 2 to 4 days earlier in the juvenile‐thinned stand than in either the unthinned juvenile stand or the clearcut. When the snowpack had disappeared from the clearcut and juvenile stands, 30% of the SWE on 1 April remained in the mature forest. The results not only show that snow accumulation and melt differ significantly between clearcut, juvenile, and mature stands, but also that snowmelt patterns vary among juvenile stands with distinct structural differences. This is due to the difference in the energy balances, dominated by radiant heat fluxes, of the four sites. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".