MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159516805 · doi:10.1139/x10-184

Effects of selective tree harvests on aboveground biomass and net primary productivity of a second-growth northern hardwood forest

2010· article· en· W2159516805 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jacob H. Dyer, Stith T. Gower, Jodi A. Forrester, Craig G. Lorimer, David J. Mladenoff, Julia I. Burton

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCooperative State Research, Education, and Extension ServiceWisconsin Department of Natural ResourcesU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsCanopyBiomass (ecology)Crown (dentistry)ProductivityEnvironmental scienceGrowing seasonPrimary productionHardwoodAgronomyVegetation (pathology)ForestryAgroforestryEcologyBiologyEcosystemGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Restoring structural features of old-growth forests, such as increased canopy gap sizes and coarse woody debris, is a common management goal for second-growth, even-aged stands. We experimentally manipulated forest structure by creating variable-size canopy gaps in a second-growth northern hardwood forest in north-central Wisconsin following two growing seasons of pre-treatment monitoring. The objectives of this study were to quantify the influence of canopy gaps of different sizes (50–380 m2) on aboveground biomass and productivity of each vegetation stratum two growing seasons following treatment. Two years after treatment, ground layer biomass in canopy openings increased significantly relative to surrounding undisturbed transition zones. The response of ground layer biomass was greatest in the large versus the medium and small gaps. Sapling aboveground net primary productivity was significantly greater in undisturbed transition zones than within gaps across gap sizes following the second post-treatment growing season. Annual stem diameter increment was greatest for trees along gap borders and was correlated with crown class, percentage of crown perimeter exposed, gap area, and shade tolerance. Total aboveground net primary productivity was significantly lower in the gap addition plots the first year but by the second post-treatment growing season no longer differed from that in the control plots.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations39
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207