Logging-residue extraction does not reduce the diversity of litter-layer saprotrophic fungi in three Swedish coniferous stands after 25 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Logging residues, consisting of branches and treetops, are increasingly being extracted for biofuel purposes in Fennoscandia, thereby decreasing the availability of fine woody debris (FWD). Little is known about the importance of FWD and litter to fungal diversity, although they constitute the major components of dead organic matter in both managed and natural forests. We investigated the long-term effects of removing logging residue on the saprotrophic fungi community in the litter layer by using an experiment established 25 years ago, comprising stands with and without removal of clear-cut slash. The fungal communities were identified using terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism from standardized baits of wood and needles left in the litter layer for 30 months. A total of 74 fungal taxa were recorded. No differences in species richness or frequency of abundant species were detected between the stands with and without slash removal, suggesting that the extraction of logging residues has a negligible long-term impact on abundant saprotrophic fungi. Twenty-five of the 36 abundant species colonized wood and needles indiscriminately, while 10 species occurred exclusively on wood or needles and only one species mainly on wood. The importance of litter to certain wood-inhabiting fungi may therefore be underrated. The frequent records of Trichaptum abietinum (Dicks.) Ryvarden indicate that wood-inhabiting species may, surprisingly, be found in the litter layer.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".