Short-term effects of timber harvest and forest edges on ground-layer mosses and liverworts
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Limited information exists on the effects of forest management practices on bryophytes, despite their importance to forest ecosystems. We examined short-term responses of ground-layer bryophytes to logging disturbance and creation of edges in mature Pseudotsuga forests of western Washington (USA). The abundance and richness of species were measured in four 1-ha forest aggregates (patches of intact forest) and in surrounding logged areas before and after structural retention harvests. One year after treatment, species richness, total cover, and frequency of most moss and liverwort taxa declined within harvest areas. Within forest aggregates, mosses did not show significant edge effects; however, richness and abundance of liverworts declined with proximity to the aggregate edge. Our results suggest that, over short time frames, 1-ha-sized aggregates are sufficient to maintain most common mosses through structural retention harvests but are not large enough to prevent declines or losses of liverworts. Thus, current standards for structural retention, which allow for aggregates as small as 0.2 ha, may be inadequate to retain the diversity and abundance of species found in mature, undisturbed forests.Key words: bryophyte, edge effects, forest borders, forest management, logging effects, structural retention harvest.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it