Multimodel simulations of forest harvesting effects on long‐term productivity and CN cycling in aspen forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of forest management on soil carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) dynamics vary by harvest type and species. We simulated long-term effects of bole-only harvesting of aspen (Populus tremuloides) on stand productivity and interaction of CN cycles with a multiple model approach. Five models, Biome-BGC, CENTURY, FORECAST, LANDIS-II with Century-based soil dynamics, and PnET-CN, were run for 350 yr with seven harvesting events on nutrient-poor, sandy soils representing northwestern Wisconsin, United States. Twenty CN state and flux variables were summarized from the models' outputs and statistically analyzed using ordination and variance analysis methods. The multiple models' averages suggest that bole-only harvest would not significantly affect long-term site productivity of aspen, though declines in soil organic matter and soil N were significant. Along with direct N removal by harvesting, extensive leaching after harvesting before canopy closure was another major cause of N depletion. These five models were notably different in output values of the 20 variables examined, although there were some similarities for certain variables. PnET-CN produced unique results for every variable, and CENTURY showed fewer outliers and similar temporal patterns to the mean of all models. In general, we demonstrated that when there are no site-specific data for fine-scale calibration and evaluation of a single model, the multiple model approach may be a more robust approach for long-term simulations. In addition, multimodeling may also improve the calibration and evaluation of an individual model.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".