Holocene development of Boreal forests and fire regimes on the Kenai Lowlands of Alaska
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several studies have noted a relationship between vegetation type and fire frequency, yet despite the importance of ecosystem processes such as fire the long-term relationships between disturbance, climate and vegetation type are incompletely understood. We analysed pollen, plant macrofossils and sedimentary charcoal from three lakes within the Kenai lowlands to determine postglacial relationships between disturbance, climate and vegetation for the Boreal forest of southwest Alaska. An herb tundra was established in the lowlands following deglaciation by 13 000 cal. BP. Salix, Alnus and probably Betula kenaica, expanded in the area after 10 700 cal. BP, followed by Picea glauca by 8500 cal. BP. Picea mariana became established by 4600 cal. BP. The early Holocene was probably the driest time during the postglacial, as determined by aquatic plant macrofossils and climate models. Lake levels reached near-modern conditions by at least 8000 cal. BP. Mean Fire Intervals (MFI) were longest during the shrub-herb tundra phase (138±65 yr), decreased after expansion of B. kenaica, Salix and Populus (77±49 yr) and Picea glauca (81±41 yr), and increased again with the arrival of P. mariana (130±66 yr). Unlike previous studies, our data demonstrate the highest fire frequencies during the early to mid-Holocene and less frequent fire during the late Holocene when P. mariana forests dominated the lowlands. Early Holocene forests of P. glauca and B. kenaica existed in summers that were longer and drier than today, while the increasingly wetter and cooler climates of the late Holocene probably hindered forest fire around Paradox Lake, perhaps because of less frequent summer drought.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".