MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156281952 · doi:10.1890/12-0888.1

Multimodel simulations of forest harvesting effects on long‐term productivity and CN cycling in aspen forests

2013· article· en· W2156281952 on OpenAlexaff
Fugui Wang, David J. Mladenoff, Jodi A. Forrester, Juan A. Blanco, Robert M. Scheller, S. D. Peckham, Cindy Keough, Melissa S. Lucash, Stith T. Gower

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Applications · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersWisconsin Department of Natural ResourcesColgate UniversityUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceCyclingSoil waterCanopyProductivityLeaching (pedology)EcologyBiomeNutrientOrdinationAtmospheric sciencesSoil scienceEcosystemForestryGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations29
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcological ApplicationsSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207