MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036059877 · doi:10.1139/x09-185

Long-term patterns in the decay, collapse, and abundance of trees with hollows in the mountain ash (Eucalyptus regnans) forests of Victoria, southeastern Australia

2010· article· en· W2036059877 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David B. Lindenmayer, Jeff T. Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEucalyptusBiotaEcologySnagPopulationAbundance (ecology)GeographyForestryGeologyHabitatBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large trees with hollows are an important component of stand structural complexity worldwide. Understanding their population dynamics is needed to manage cavity-dependent biota. We quantified long-term rates of collapse of 302 measured trees with hollows in 1939-aged regrowth mountain ash ( Eucalyptus regnans F. Muell.) forest in southeastern Australia. We identified time-dependent dynamics in which the collapse rates of trees slowed from ∼4% annually between 1983 and 1993 to ∼2.2% between 1993 and 2007. Transitions of trees between different decay states (forms) also slowed over time. Nevertheless, during the 24-year period of our study, over half of our marked and measured trees had fallen, but there was no recruitment of new trees with hollows. Under current projections, few trees with hollows will occur on our field sites by ∼2050, although more had been forecast in earlier investigations. Such a paucity of trees with hollows in extensive areas of regrowth mountain ash forests will lead to a shortage of nesting and sheltering sites for cavity-dependent biota. We suggest a short–medium (10- to 100-year) focus on the conservation of old growth and multi-aged stands will be needed to maintain populations of those species strongly associated with trees with hollows in mountain ash forests.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.260
Threshold uncertainty score0.517

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations50
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207