Immediate tree uprooting after retention-felling in a coniferous boreal forest in Fennoscandia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied the immediate effects of retention-felling on the occurrence of tree uprooting in two different types of boreal spruce forest in Finland to determine whether susceptibility to uprooting is dependent on the biotope. During the first post-treatment year, 7.1% of the trees in the paludified forest type and 1.8% in the upland forest type were uprooted. During the 2 following post-treatment years, uprooting percentages increased considerably (39.3% in the paludified type and 11.5% in the upland type in year 2; 48.3% in the paludified type and 15.2% in the upland type in year 3). Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.), the dominant species in both forest types, was the species most susceptible to uprooting. The high uprooting rate in the paludified groups was probably caused by an interaction between the rocky ground and moist overlying peat layer with the shallow root system of P. abies. As paludified forest biotopes are generally recognized to have high biodiversity, the use of green-tree retention in these biotypes may enhance the continuum and survival of sensitive species. Moreover, because of the high level of uprooting, green-tree retention in paludified forest types can quickly and more naturally help restore levels of coarse woody debris.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".