Forest structure and understory plant communities inside and outside tree retention groups in boreal forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alternatives are being sought to the widespread use of clear-cut logging in boreal forests. Group retention harvesting is a silvicultural treatment in which well-distributed but relatively small residual forest patches (ca 10 m wide) are left inside cutover sites. The objective of this study was to compare vascular plant communities, tree species regeneration, and dead wood retention in tree retention groups and adjacent clear-cuts with soil protection. Our results indicate that plant diversity is relatively similar inside tree retention groups and the adjacent clear-cut area. This result may be explained by the important spatial variability observed among the stands, which were located in different geographical locations, the fact that soils were little disturbed during harvesting in clear-cuts and few opportunities were present for the establishment of pioneer species, and the relatively short time span since harvesting. Using a functional trait approach, we found that shade tolerance still plays a significant but relatively minor role in explaining species abundance between the 2 environments. Tree retention groups also retain a greater quantity and greater variability of dead wood materials compared with clear-cuts, and a higher abundance of regenerating trees, which is likely explained in part by the direct damage caused by the harvesting operations outside tree retention groups. Overall, retention groups do not appear to confer superior protection for late-successional plants compared with traditional clear-cut logging with soil protection. Their ecological value mostly consists in ensuring a minimal input of dead woody materials for saproxylic species.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".