MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112897012 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-30-2-288

Origin of the lichen woodland at its southern range limit in eastern Canada: the catastrophic impact of insect defoliators and fire on the spruce-moss forest

2000· article· en· W2112897012 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Serge Payette, Najat Bhiry, Ann Delwaide, M. Simard

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWoodlandTaigaLichenMossSpruce budwormEcologyBorealMacrofossilGeographyForestryEnvironmental scienceAgroforestryBiologyTortricidae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The lichen woodland is one of the most important forest ecosystems in North America, dominating the central part of the boreal forest. The southernmost lichen woodland is paradoxically in the heart of the southern boreal forest. This distribution prompted this study aiming to identify the factors responsible for the inception and development of the lichen woodland at its southern range limit in eastern Canada. We tested the hypothesis that the southern lichen-spruce woodland is a regressive, post-fire type of the spruce-moss forest. We studied adjacent lichen-spruce and spruce-moss stands growing under similar soil conditions. We reconstructed the recent history of spruce-moss forest transformation to lichen woodland using tree size, tree ring patterns, and macrofossil analysis of organic soil. All the plant macrofossils buried in the unburned organic mat below the charcoal layer of the last fire corresponded to a feather-moss forest assemblage and included head capsules of the spruce budworm (Choristoneura fumiferana (Clem.)) or European spruce sawfly (Gilpinia hercyniae Hartig.). The impact of combined insect and fire disturbances translates into a dramatic decrease in post-fire tree regeneration of the forest inducing the shift to lichen woodland. The inception of the southern lichen woodland highlights the fragility of the spruce-moss forest even in the core area of the southern commercial boreal forest.

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)0.002
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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.618

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations122
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207