MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of Postfire Salvage Logging on Deadwood‐Associated Beetles

2010· article· en· W2166934768 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Tyler Cobb, Jacques Morissette, Joshua M. Jacobs, Matti Koivula, John R. Spence, David W. Langor

Bibliographic record

VenueConservation Biology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest ServiceUniversity of AlbertaRoyal Alberta Museum
FundersNatural Resources CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Natural Resources Limited
KeywordsLoggingSalvage loggingEnvironmental scienceSnagForestryEcologyGeographyBiologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Canada and the United States pressure to recoup financial costs of wildfire by harvesting burned timber is increasing, despite insufficient understanding of the ecological consequences of postfire salvage logging. We compared the species richness and composition of deadwood-associated beetle assemblages among undisturbed, recently burned, logged, and salvage-logged, boreal, mixed-wood stands. Species richness was lowest in salvage-logged stands, largely due to a negative effect of harvesting on the occurrence of wood- and bark-boring species. In comparison with undisturbed stands, the combination of wildfire and logging in salvage-logged stands had a greater effect on species composition than either disturbance alone. Strong differences in species composition among stand treatments were linked to differences in quantity and quality (e.g., decay stage) of coarse woody debris. We found that the effects of wildfire and logging on deadwood-associated beetles were synergistic, such that the effects of postfire salvage logging could not be predicted reliably on the basis of data on either disturbance alone. Thus, increases in salvage logging of burned forests may have serious negative consequences for deadwood-associated beetles and their ecological functions in early postfire successional forests.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.502
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations44
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConservation BiologySame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207