Short-term impact of forest soil compaction and organic matter removal on soil mesofauna density and oribatid mite diversity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the short-term impact of forest soil compaction and organic matter removal on soil mesofauna, in general, and oribatid mite species, in particular. Both soil compaction and organic matter removal reduced the density of soil mesofauna. Stem-only harvesting reduced total mesofauna densities by 20% relative to uncut forest values. A combination of whole-tree harvest and forest floor removal with heavy soil compaction significantly reduced total soil mesofauna densities by 93% relative to the uncut forest control. Removal of the forest floor represents a substantial loss of habitat for most soil mesofauna. The forest floor apparently buffered the mineral soil by limiting both the impact of soil compaction and fluctuations in soil temperature and moisture. The relative abundance of Prostigmata and Mesostigmata increased with treatment severity, whereas that of Oribatida decreased. Species richness of the oribatid mite fauna was reduced as the severity of treatments increased. The number of rare oribatid species (those representing <1% of the total oribatid mite sample) decreased by 40% or more relative to the uncut forest control. Evenness also decreased as treatment severity increased. Oppiella nova and Suctobelbella sp. near acutidens were the dominant oribatid species in both the forest floor and mineral soil, regardless of treatment. Soil compaction and organic matter removal significantly impacted the density and diversity of soil mesofauna and oribatid mite fauna in the short term at these study sites.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".