Effect of forest harvest on soil temperature and water storage and movement patterns on Boreal Plain hillslopes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through its effect on vegetation, forest harvesting affects soil moisture storage, water movement processes, and soil temperature. The effects of harvest on water storage and movement patterns and on soil temperature during the snowmelt period were studied 3 years after harvest on hillslopes in northern Alberta, Canada. Measurements of soil water content, soil temperature, and bromide tracer concentrations were made at 11 pairs of forested and harvested plots, which are all dominated by Gray Luvisol soils but possess a range of topographic characteristics. Compared with forested sites, harvested sites were expected to have higher soil water content, display more interflow, and thaw earlier. Harvested sites were wetter on only one of four dates sampled, reflecting dry weather and rapid aspen regrowth. Greater loss and shallower penetration of bromide tracer in plots indicate that harvested sites had more interflow than forested sites. Despite a trend to higher temperatures, harvested sites did not thaw earlier than forested sites. Our inability to detect dramatic treatment effects reflects the need for large sample sizes for soil properties that display high local spatial and temporal variability. Key words: forest harvest, soil moisture, soil thaw, bromide, interflow, boreal.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".