Comparison of plantations and naturally regenerated clearcuts in the Acadian Forest: forest floor bryophyte community and habitat features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To address concern for loss of bryophyte biodiversity within managed forests, we compared community composition and environmental characteristics among three disturbance regimes: (i) naturally regenerated clear-cut forests, (ii) cutover spruce plantations (established on clear-cut forest land), and (iii) afforested field spruce plantations (established on agricultural fields) across a range of ages (19102 years) in the Acadian Forest region of New Brunswick, Canada. Abundances of all forest floor bryophyte species, available substrates, microtopographical features, and tree canopy were measured as percent cover (1 m 2 ) in 26 stands: 12 naturally regenerated clear-cut forests, eight cutover plantations, and six afforested field plantations. Multivariate analyses indicated that both bryophyte community composition and associated environment differed significantly across disturbance regimes, with no strong trends related to time since clearing (i.e., stand age). Spruce plantations were characterized by low substrate diversity and microtopographic and canopy homogeneity. Both plantation types had lower bryophyte species richness, evenness, and diversity (H') relative to naturally regenerated clear-cut forests; cutover plantations had the highest total bryophyte cover. The bryophyte community of plantations was composed of a subset of species found within naturally regenerated clear-cut forests: many liverworts and epixylic mosses were absent, with fewer pioneer species and more perennial stayers (equivalent to K-strategists) than expected.Key words: bryophyte, disturbance regime, substrate, canopy, microtopography, plantation.
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 | 0.001 | 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".