MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Asynchronous forest–stream coupling in a fire‐prone boreal landscape: insights from woody debris

2007· article· en· W2045916642 on OpenAlexafffund
Dominique Arseneault, Étienne Boucher, Élodie Bouchon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ecology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceRiparian zoneFloodplainDebrisCoarse woody debrisTaigaHydrology (agriculture)BorealEcologyGeologyForestryGeographyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary We used dendrochronology to reconstruct the transfer of coarse woody debris across a forest–stream interface in a fire‐prone boreal landscape. A sequence of regulating factors was considered from source to sink of in‐stream woody debris (SWD), including fire history at the landscape scale, patterns of post‐fire recovery of riparian forest and inputs of SWD at the scale of a stream reach and its associated floodplain, and burial of SWD at an excavated site. Fires occurred repeatedly in the studied landscape (at least in 1708, 1733, 1791, 1811, c. 1838, c. 1850, 1882, 1941 and 1998), and were generally patchy on the floodplain because of the firebreak effect of the riparian corridor. Unburned forest remnants were regularly generated at the stream margin, thus permitting temporally continuous but spatially localized transfer of woody material across the forest–stream interface. These remaining forest patches also increased forest resilience by dispersing seeds and promoting conifer re‐establishment in burned areas. Because of higher severity compared with previous fires, the 1941 fire burned almost everywhere on the floodplain, creating only a few widely isolated unburned forest remnants. Consequently, following an abrupt post‐fire increase, SWD inputs almost completely ceased. In addition, post‐fire recovery of the riparian wood source is slow because of the spatially restricted seed source. In this alluvial stream, wood burial is faster than decay and largely determines the residence time of SWD. Because the residence time is about 150 years, the current density of SWD is high and contrasts sharply with the very low tree density at the stream margin. Although this long residence time helps maintain stream integrity while the forest is recovering from the 1941 fire, it is unlikely that SWD inputs would resume extensively before burial of the current SWD pool. Our research exemplifies the potentially complex impacts of disturbances on material transfer between a source and a sink ecosystem. We conclude that when certain components of ecosystems are coupled by unidirectional flow, those components will behave asynchronously if a disturbance impact at the source ecosystem does not propagate rapidly to the sink and the source and the sink recover at different rates.

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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations31
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of EcologySame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207