MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130036272 · doi:10.1139/x01-034

Ectomycorrhizal mushroom response to partial cutting in a western hemlock - western redcedar forest

2001· article· en· W2130036272 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
J. M. Kranabetter, Paul Kroeger

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTsugaWestern HemlockThujaBasal areaClearcuttingSpecies richnessBiologyMushroomMycorrhizaEpigealBotanyChamaecyparisHorticultureEcologySymbiosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined epigeous ectomycorrhizal mushroom richness and productivity after partial cutting in a western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.) - western redcedar (Thuja plicata Donn ex D. Don in Lamb.) forest of northwestern British Columbia. Mushrooms were collected throughout the fruiting season (July to October) for 3 years, starting 5 years after partial cutting, from plots with mesic soil conditions and residual basal areas ranging from 23 to 69 m2/ha for western hemlock and 0 to 26 m2/ha for western redcedar. Partial cutting had no apparent effect on mushroom phenology over the 3 years. Significant block interactions demonstrated that reductions in basal area of western hemlock could lead to positive, neutral, and negative responses in mushroom richness, biomass, and number of fruiting bodies. These responses were related to stand structure and the potential differences in tree vigour after partial cutting. In addition, there was weak evidence that western redcedar, a host for vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhiza, had a negative effect on average taxon richness. The study demonstrated that partial-cutting systems could allow some timber removal without necessarily reducing ectomycorrhizal mushroom communities.

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)0.000
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 score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations45
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207