MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

GAP DYNAMICS IN BOREAL ASPEN STANDS: IS THE FOREST OLDER THAN WE THINK?

2000· article· en· W2117500913 on OpenAlexaffabout
S. G. Cumming, Fiona K. A. Schmiegelow, P. J. Burton

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Applications · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsECW Press (Canada)University of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanopyTaigaForest dynamicsDeciduousEcologyBorealDisturbance (geology)Yellow birchStand developmentRange (aeronautics)GeographyForestryEnvironmental scienceBiologyHardwood

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides) in western Canadian boreal forests is generally believed to occur as young, even-aged stands, as part of a fire-dominated landscape. However, the available quantitative estimates of the rate of disturbance by fire in this region differ markedly. One estimate is consistent with forests much older than are currently thought to exist. The theory of gap dynamics may partly reconcile the discrepancy, by suggesting a mechanism whereby old, uneven-aged aspen stands could develop and persist. We surveyed for canopy gaps in 44–67 yr old aspen stands in northeastern Alberta, Canada, and found that expanded gaps occupy 3.6–16.6% of stand area, increasing linearly with stand age over the sampled range. Gaps begin to form ∼40 yr after stand initiation, through the accumulated mortality of adjacent canopy trees. The densities of aspen (P. tremuloides), balsam poplar (P. balsamifera), and paper birch (Betula papyrifera) saplings were 2–3 times higher in gaps than in paired control areas under a closed canopy. Sample plots in older aspen stands in the vicinity had spatially heterogeneous, uneven age structures, consistent with gap dynamics. More extensive samples of stem-size-structure data and forest-inventory data sets indicate that this phenomenon is widespread. We conclude that gap dynamics can maintain near-pure deciduous stands in this region, in the absence of shade-tolerant competitors. A cellular-automata model of aspen-stand dynamics, with spatially random mortality, yields predictions consistent with our other results. It follows from the model that stable age structures develop within 250–300 yr, that mean canopy age is a biased estimator of stand age in stands older than 100 yr, and that small-sample maxima have unfavorable sampling distributions. Comparable biases may be present in ages estimated from aerial photography: significant areas of “young” aspen have age structures characteristic of simulated old stands. We present less direct arguments that other components of the Alberta boreal forest are also older than is generally thought, and we outline a new model of the regional forest dynamics. We conclude that vast tracts of boreal forest are now being managed on the basis of an incorrectly estimated age structure and a misconception of their landscape dynamics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations154
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcological ApplicationsSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207