Estimating the biomass of woodland caribou forage lichens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lichens are an important winter food source for woodland caribou ( Rangifer tarandus caribou ), but quantifying their abundance is difficult. Here, we present an efficient method for assessing lichen biomass at the stand level in boreal forests. We measured lichens occurring in high enough abundance to serve as a winter food source for woodland caribou in 51 boreal forest stands. Samples of each species or genus were collected from each stand and a mean abundance (cover) to biomass ratio was established. The method does not require samples to be collected or weighed, due to this predetermined relationship, and it also accounts for the variation in biomass among lichen species that are equally abundant. The variation in lichen growth between stands was assessed by means of five lichen abundance classes. The proposed method was tested in 34 stands with a wide range of ages and stem densities. The average time to complete a lichen biomass assessment was approximately 2 h. This method is an efficient and accurate tool that can assist forest managers and researchers with ecological studies on lichens or with monitoring changes in lichen biomass over time and with habitat assessments for organisms for which lichens are important, such as woodland caribou.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".