Ecological forestry at National Wildlife Refuges: Experiences from Seney National Wildlife Refuge and Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area, USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although land management over much of the history of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) has emphasized single-species management, recent policy has encouraged land managers to focus on broader ecosystem restoration goals. One framework for forest ecosystem management that is becoming more popular in the NWRS and other federal and state resource agencies has been termed “ecological forestry”—an approach to forest ecosystem management where the focus is on incorporating an understanding of the outcomes of natural disturbances and stand development processes into designing silvicultural practices. This approach stresses understanding the effects of natural disturbances on biological legacies, structural and compositional heterogeneity, and the recovery periods between disturbance events (including how this recovery period influences stand complexity). Recently, resource managers and ecologists from Seney National Wildlife Refuge, The Ohio State University, and Central Michigan University have partnered to examine how these guiding principles can be integrated into NWRS forest ecosystem management. Specifically, we are partnering to develop management strategies to help: 1) restore the once extensive mixed-pine forest ecosystems of eastern Upper Michigan; 2) mitigate the effects of the beech-bark disease complex on American beech (Fagus grandifolia Ehrh.), a foundation species in northern hardwood forests of eastern North America; and 3) promote more natural forest patterns for wildlife species of young jack pine (Pinus banksiana Lamb.) forest ecosystems, including the federally endangered Kirtland’s warbler (Dendroica kirtlandii). These efforts are ongoing and will continue to be monitored over time. However, initial collaborations suggest that the NWRS provides an excellent crucible to study the application of ecological forestry principles and develop novel ways to manage forest ecosystems. Key words: ecological forestry, forest restoration, Kirtland’s warbler, National Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".