MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087270631 · doi:10.1139/x99-237

Long-term response of understory plant species to thinning and fertilization in a Douglas-fir plantation on southern Vancouver Island, British Columbia

2000· article· en· W2087270631 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Fangliang He, Hugh J. Barclay

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Forest Service
KeywordsUnderstoryThinningCanopyVegetation (pathology)ForestryEnvironmental scienceSilvicultureMossSpecies richnessEcologyBiologyAgroforestryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 27-year response of understory vegetation in a 51-year-old Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) forest to thinning and N fertilization treatments was examined in a silviculture experiment at Shawnigan Lake on southern Vancouver Island of British Columbia. The experiment was a two-way factorial design with three levels for each of thinning and N fertilization. No significant treatment effects on the number of either vascular or nonvascular species were detected. This was also true for the covers of the majority of understory species except salal (Gaultheria shallon Pursh) and Oregon beaked moss (Kindbergia oregana (Sull.) Ochyra). Heavy thinning led to high salal and Oregon beaked moss cover, whereas heavy fertilization resulted in lower cover of salal but had no effect on the cover of Oregon beaked moss. Although thinning had a marginal effect on the cover of canopy trees 27 years after treatment, the cover of the canopy trees had only minimal effects on understory vegetation. Conversely, no adverse effect of understory vegetation on canopy trees was found. This study suggested that after 27 years thinning and fertilization had little effect on understory vegetation whether in terms of species richness or vegetation cover. An effective way to conserve species diversity is to protect specific substrate types, e.g., tree trunks, stumps, and coarse woody debris. A commercial thinning was recommended to reduce the time of stem exclusion in similar type of 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score0.937

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations71
Published2000
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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