MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2192663690 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2013-0460

Wildfire-contingent effects of fuel treatments can promote ecological resilience in seasonally dry conifer forests

2014· article· en· W2192663690 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jens T. Stevens, Hugh D. Safford, Andrew M. Latimer

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Forest Service
KeywordsUnderstoryEnvironmental scienceLitterShrubDisturbance (geology)ForestryAgroforestryFire regimeFire ecologyPrescribed burnForest ecologyEcosystemForest restorationCanopyEcologyGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fire suppression has made many seasonally dry conifer forests more susceptible to high-severity wildfires, which cause large changes in forest structure and function. In response, management agencies are applying fuel reduction treatments to millions of acres of forest, with the goal of moderating fire behavior by reducing tree density and understory fuel loads. However, despite their wide application, we still lack basic information about the extent to which these treatments contribute to forest restoration by increasing forest resilience to recurring wildfire events. To address this question, we established 664 plots across 12 different sites in California, USA, where wildfire burned through fuel treatments, and measured a suite of forest characteristics relating to overstory structure, understory cover, and woody plant regeneration. We tested a “wildfire-contingency” hypothesis that there should be strong interactions between treatment and fire, specifically that the direction and magnitude of fuel treatment effects on forest characteristics will depend on subsequent disturbance. This interaction hypothesis had strong support, driven largely by effects on trees: without wildfire, live-tree cover was lower in treated stands than in untreated stands, but after wildfire, it was higher in treated stands than in untreated stands. Treated stands had higher soil moisture and more shrub seedlings than untreated stands without wildfire but had greater soil moisture and fewer shrub seedlings than untreated stands after wildfire. Conversely, litter depth, litter cover, and tree seedling abundance were lower in treated stands than in untreated stands without wildfire but higher in treated stands than in untreated stands after wildfire. Ordination revealed that the magnitude of ecological change attributable to wildfire is lower in treated stands than in untreated stands. We conclude that properly implemented treatments can promote resilience to both first-entry and subsequent wildfires.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations75
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207