Lichen chronosequences (postfire and postharvest) in lodgepole pine (<i>Pinus contorta</i>) forests of northern interior British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lichen community development was examined in a postfire chronosequence from lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud var. latifolia Engelm.) forests in the Omineca region of north-central British Columbia and in stands originating from logging in the early 1980s. Fire-origin stands showed dense regeneration of pine and widespread growth of acrocarpous mosses such as Polytrichum spp. As canopy thinning progressed, Cladonia spp. lichens initiated development at the forest floor surface. By 50100 years after stand origin, Cladina mitis and Cladina rangiferina dominated at the forest floor surface, remaining at high cover values well into the second century of stand development. Late seral stages of stand development (approximately 150+ years) showed increasing basal area and canopy cover of lodgepole pine, with feathermoss mats (e.g., Pleurozium schreberi) replacing terrestrial lichens at the forest floor surface. Stand ordinations confirmed these groupings of species. Stand structural factors that correlate best with lichen mat development include tree density, basal area, and canopy cover. Changes in the leaf area index and associated litterfall loading appear to precipitate the replacement of terrestrial lichen mats in "old-growth" stands. Interestingly, this trend was reversed in mature stands where winter harvesting of trees removed canopy cover without disturbing the forest floor surface. Lichen cover in these sites, 15 years after harvest, exceeded that of comparably aged fire-origin stands. Summer harvesting (with a presumed greater disturbance of soils) did not trigger a similar rebound of lichen communities. Instead, vascular plants appeared to invade these sites, following a seral sequence different from that occurring in fire-origin stands.Key words: terrestrial lichens, pine woodlands, caribou habitat.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".