Cattle grazing effects on plant species composition and soil compaction on rehabilitated forest landings in central interior British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soils on forest landings (areas of cutblocks where harvested trees are processed and loaded onto trucks) are often degraded and unable to support optimal growth of planted conifers unless rehabilitation practices are applied. In British Columbia (BC), cattle often graze forage on forest landings. This study evaluated the effects of cattle grazing on native and non-native plant species composition, soil compaction, and tree growth on rehabilitated forest landings in the central interior of BC. Three study sites (landings) were rehabilitated by tillage in 1998, planted with lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. var. latifolia Engelm.) in 1999, and sampled during May-September 2003. Grazing regimes consisted of ungrazed exclosures and landings grazed to achieve 50 percent utilization of forages. Abundance of native species and non-native weeds was not affected by grazing, while alsike clover (Trifolium hybridum L.) was the only non-native forage species reduced by grazing. With greater mechanical resistance and less stable aggregates, the soil on the grazed landings was less favorable to plant growth. Canopy cover of lodgepole pine, tree height, diameter, and leader growth were all reduced on areas of the landing used by cattle. Trampling damaged 75 percent of trees, but 70 percent of planted lodgepole pine survived. Cattle grazing on rehabilitated landings may be feasible but managers should recognize the potential for cattle damage to regenerating tree seedlings and incorporate plans to prevent or mitigate such damage.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".