Vegetation recovery following fire and harvest disturbance in central Labrador — a landscape perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding vegetation recovery patterns following wildfire and logging disturbance is essential for long-term planning in sustainable forestry. Plot-scale studies indicate differences in revegetation rates and postdisturbance composition in Labrador, Canada, following fire in comparison with harvest but do not necessarily capture the full range of relevant landscape variability. Using a satellite-based land cover classification that distinguishes forest, woodland, shrub, lichen, and bare ground, we applied partial least-squared regression (PLS) to derive empirical models of vegetation dynamics following fire and harvest. Forest recovery rates were found to be generally slow and sensitive to predisturbance land condition and site quality (potential productivity). We found that, although disturbance type was not specifically retained in the model, estimated rates of vegetation recovery were faster for a typical harvest compared with a typical fire (i.e., 50% recovery at 14 years versus 33 years, respectively). Indeed, the model predicts important regeneration delay following fire that appears sensitive to both site quality and area burned. Understanding factors affecting broad-scale vegetation recovery relationships can help guide future sustainable forestry and wildlife habitat initiatives in the region, in part by parameterizing landscape simulation models used for strategic decision support.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".