The effects of logs, stumps, and root throws on understory communities within 28-year-old aspen-dominated boreal forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the role of logs, stumps, and root throws on the understory composition of aspen-dominated boreal forests. Measures of microsite coverage and suitability, and vascular plant composition and abundance were taken from 28-year-old wildfire and harvest sites. Larger logs (>20 cm diameter) with soft surfaces were the most suitable for colonization by vascular plants. These logs covered more than five times the area of stumps or root throws in both harvest and wildfire sites. Detrended correspondence analysis revealed that logs and stumps were colonized by a significantly different assemblage of vascular plants than the forest floor of either disturbance type. Contrary to studies in other forest types, assemblages of plants on root throw pits and mounds were similar to those on the forest floor. Initial colonization patterns on logs and stumps in both wildfire and harvest sites were similar. However, on more decayed logs assemblages of vascular plants were more similar to their respective wildfire or harvest forest floor assemblages. Ordination of species suggested that tree seedlings and shade-tolerant herbs were disproportionately more abundant on logs and stumps.Key words: plant community assemblages, deadwood resources, coarse woody debris, root throws, logs, boreal forest.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".