Conifer seed predation in harvested and burned dry Douglas-fir forests in southern British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consumption of seeds of Douglas-fir ( Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) and ponderosa pine ( Pinus ponderosa Dougl. ex P. & C. Laws.) was measured in dry Douglas-fir forest at the Opax Mountain Silvicultural Systems site and a nearby burned area as one component of understanding limited natural regeneration in these sites. Seeds were placed in plots surrounded by a physical barrier to invertebrates, enclosed in mesh impermeable to small mammals, covered by litter, or unprotected in clear-cut, partially harvested, uncut, and burned areas and monitored for three several-day sessions in 2 years. Daily survival rates of unprotected seeds of both species were equally low: 0.63 in uncut forest, 0.45 in partially harvested and clear-cut sites, and 0.03 in the burned area. Experimental reductions of coarse woody debris reduced seed predation moderately in patch cuts but not in uncut forest. Litter cover or selective exclosure of ground-dwelling invertebrates reduced seed losses only slightly, whereas small mammal exclosures eliminated most seed loss. Deer mice ( Peromyscus maniculatus Wagner) are likely the most important seed predators. High rates of seed predation in dry Douglas-fir forests likely limit natural regeneration in harvested and burned stands.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".