The influence of riparian vegetation on leaf litter inputs to Boreal Shield streams: implications for partial-harvest logging in riparian reserves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Litter inputs to headwater streams were measured to characterize and describe input patterns to the streams and to quantify the relationships between leaf litter inputs and surrounding riparian characteristics in Boreal Shield forests. Our goal was to provide information on litter inputs to streams in the Boreal Shield to determine if partial-harvest logging of commercial trees within riparian reserves has the potential to cause significant changes to litter inputs. Total leaf litter comprised 87% deciduous leaves and 13% conifer needles during the June to October periods. Commercial deciduous tree species accounted for approximately 50% of total deciduous leaf litter inputs. Distance-weighted deciduous basal area was the best predictor of overstorey deciduous litter (r2 = 0.597, P = <0.001), indicating that the size, abundance, and proximity of deciduous trees to streams are important to deciduous litter inputs. Leaf litter inputs to Boreal Shield streams are strongly influenced by surrounding riparian vegetation and can be effectively predicted by stem basal area. A linear regression model based on commercial deciduous tree basal area is presented that can be useful to determine the number of trees to retain within a riparian area to maintain leaf litter inputs at or near preharvest levels.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".