MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027587798 · doi:10.1139/b02-023

Effects of forest plantation management on herbaceous-layer composition and diversity

2002· article· en· W2027587798 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Mark R. Roberts

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChronosequenceSpecies richnessSpecies diversityHerbaceous plantHabitatClearcuttingDiversity indexEcologyAbundance (ecology)Old-growth forestForest managementBiodiversityGeographyBiologyForestryEcological succession

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I compared the species composition and diversity of vascular plants in the herbaceous layer from a chronosequence of intensively managed spruce (Picea) plantations in three age-classes (5–7, 10–12, 14–16 years) with natural, mature stands (ca. 90 years) in southeastern New Brunswick, Canada. Total species richness (stand level) averaged 81–84 species in the three plantation age-classes compared with 64 species in the natural stands; richness of forest habitat species alone was 33–36 in the plantations and 37 in the natural stands. More fertile sites had significantly higher values for Hill's diversity indices (N 0 , N 1 , N 2 ). Mean N 0 , N 1 , and N 2 (subplot level) did not differ among stand types for all species, but N 1 and N 2 were significantly greater in the natural stands than in one or two plantation age-classes for forest habitat species alone. The two younger age-classes of plantations differed significantly in composition from the natural stands and the plantations became slightly more similar (Sørensen's index) to the natural stands with increasing age. One forest habitat species was lost and 24 others decreased in cover in the plantations. Tracking of plantations over a longer time period will be needed to determine whether these forest habitat species eventually regain their former abundance.Key words: chronosequence, forest harvesting, herbaceous layer, plantations, species diversity, species composition.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.569

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.171 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207