Effects of forest disturbance on water chemistry in a forested ecosystem: case study from Terra Nova National Park, Newfoundland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Boreal forests, like all forests, are affected by disturbances. Whether natural or anthropogenic, disturbances have the ability to influence forest processes and alter existing conditions, eventually affecting the overall forest composition and distribution. Each type of disturbance, as well as each specific event, is unique in terms of its characteristics and its effects. -- The overall objective of this study was to look at whether or not the disturbance history of boreal forests in Terra Nova National Park, Newfoundland was reflected in the water chemistry. One component of the study examined the long-term effects of fire and logging on water chemistry of park lakes, as well as the short-term effects of a forest fire in one area of the park. The second component of the study examined a specific forested watershed and how a local disturbance, moose herbivory, was affecting soil solution chemistry. -- Overall, it appeared that with moderate disturbance and given sufficient time, forests are able to recover naturally and minimize any long-term chemical effects to their environment. Results from the short-term study of a recent forest fire did suggest chemical differences in soil solution. However, the local disturbance of moose herbivory showed no discernible effects in the short-term. Effects of this disturbance likely require a longer time to become apparent.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".