MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155263920 · doi:10.3375/043.031.0403

Degradation of Boreal Forests by Nonnative Herbivores in Newfoundland's National Parks: Recommendations for Ecosystem Restoration

2011· article· en· W2155263920 on OpenAlexaffabout
John W. Gosse, Luise Hermanutz, Brian McLaren, Peter Deering, Tom Knight

Bibliographic record

VenueNatural Areas Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsParks CanadaLakehead UniversityMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnderstoryAbies balsameaEcologyTaigaDisturbance (geology)GeographyEcological successionSeed dispersalForest managementBalsamHerbivoreBiological dispersalCanopyBiologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For land management agencies such as Parks Canada that are tasked with maintaining the ecological integrity of protected, natural landscapes, dealing with the impacts of non-indigenous species on forest succession is a serious management concern. In both Terra Nova and Gros Morne National Parks (island of Newfoundland, Canada), the cumulative impacts of non-native species are negatively affecting the capacity of a dominant conifer, balsam fir (Abies balsamea), to regenerate following canopy disturbance by forest insects. Early development of an understory fir layer is compromised by heavy predation on female cones by red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), and post-dispersal seed and seedling predation by non-native rodents and slugs. Taller saplings are then subjected to heavy browsing from non-native moose (Alces alces) so that recruitment to reproductive-aged trees is largely inhibited. An indirect effect of the long-term removal of understory fir is that seedbeds are shifting from optimal feathermoss types towards seedbeds dominated by competing grasses and non-native plants, thus reducing potential germination of balsam fir. We provide evidence that these changes to forest composition and structure are occurring at large spatial scales across both protected and non-protected landscapes. Finally, we offer management recommendations including sustained reductions of moose numbers and the supplemental planting of fir where understory densities are exceptionally low and seedbed degradation has occurred.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.339
Threshold uncertainty score0.683

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations50
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNatural Areas JournalSame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207