Influence of repeated fertilization on forest ecosystems: relative habitat use by snowshoe hares (<i>Lepus americanus</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was designed to test the hypothesis that large-scale precommercial thinning (PCT) and repeated fertilization of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. var. latifolia Engelm.) would enhance relative habitat use by snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus Erxleben) in managed stands. Study areas were located near Summerland, Kelowna, and Williams Lake in south-central British Columbia, Canada. Each study area had nine treatments: four pairs of stands thinned to densities of 250, 500, 1000, and 2000 stems/ha, with one stand of each pair fertilized five times at 2-year intervals, and an unthinned stand. Understory vegetation and relative habitat use by snowshoe hares were measured annually from 1999 to 2003, 6–10 years after the onset of treatments. Mean crown volume index of herbs was significantly higher in fertilized than unfertilized stands, but density had no effect. Shrub volume was not affected by either treatment. Mean crown volume index of trees was significantly greater in the fertilized and high-density stands. Mean total richness of vascular plants was significantly reduced by fertilization. Mean total structural diversity of vegetation was highest in the low-density stands but was not affected by fertilization. Relative habitat use by hares, based on fecal pellet counts, was highest in the 2000 stems/ha and unthinned stands in summer. This pattern also occurred in winter when hare use was higher in fertilized than unfertilized stands. Overall, fertilized 2000 stems/ha stands provided habitat for hares to a degree comparable with unthinned stands of lodgepole pine.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".