Biophysical sustainability, process-based monitoring and forest ecosystem management decision support systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sustainability is a key concept in resource management and environmental issues, but implementation is fraught with difficulty due to lack of agreement as to what it means. Because of the ubiquity of disturbance, ecosystem sustainability inevitably involves change. We define stand-level biophysical sustainability as non-declining patterns of change over at least three cycles of disturbance, and landscape-level sustainability as a shifting mosaic of non-declining stand change, the overall character of which remains within acceptable limits over time. Simple empirical assessment (i.e., monitoring) of this concept of sustainability is generally not practical in forestry because of the long time and large spatial scales involved. Adaptive management (AM), another key resource management concept, involves monitoring to assess the consequences of management actions. It requires forecasts of expected change in sustainably managed, post-disturbance ecosystems against which to assess monitoring data. Without these forecasts, which constitute temporal fingerprints of sustainable change, short-term monitoring data cannot be used reliably as a basis from which to assess longer-term sustainability. A comprehensive monitoring system to address biophysical sustainability locally and at the landscape scale for a large management unit over a rotation-length time scale would involve the key elements of ecosystem structure and function and the effects thereon of management and climate change. This would be prohibitively expensive and demanding of human resources and the results would not be available until the end of the rotation. A strategy that honours the intent of AM is an intimate linkage between predictive monitoring and process-based ecosystem management decision support systems—ecosystem process-based monitoring—the emphasis of which is on temporal patterns of indicator change rather than comparisons between static indicators and audits of current ecosystem conditions (the certification approach). It involves a combination of monitoring and ecosystem management modeling that reduces the long-term cost of monitoring and increases the utility of the data collected for the assessment of sustainability and for the design of policy and adaptive practice in forestry. Key words: prediction, process-based monitoring, sustainability, forest ecosystems, biophysical indicators, temporal fingerprints, adaptive management, ecosystem management models
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".