Response of lodgepole pine health to soil disturbance treatments in British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soil disturbance from organic matter loss and soil compaction can impair site productivity, but less is known about whether these disturbances also affect forest health (defined here as the presence and severity of damaging pests and diseases, mortality, and overall vigour). We used six long-term soil productivity (LTSP) sites in the interior of British Columbia, Canada to test the effects of organic-matter removal and soil compaction on forest health, and to explore the relationship between forest health response and potential indicators of site sensitivity: mineral soil pH, base saturation, carbon to nitrogen ratio (C:N), carbon to phosphorus ratio (C:P), and calcium to aluminum ratio (Ca:Al). Visual forest health surveys were conducted on 5400 15 and 20 year old lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud.) trees. Soil disturbance treatments significantly affected forest health metrics, but this response typically differed among sites. Principle component analyses indicated the response of healthy trees was negatively related to soil base saturation, the response of dead or dying trees related to soil C:P, and the response of tree disease related to soil Ca:Al, pH, base saturation, and C:N. We found forest health response to soil disturbance varied among sites with relationships between response and soil chemical properties, suggesting a greater vulnerability of pine stands to disease with increasing soil acidity.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".