MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2623671388 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2017-0129

Density-dependent woody detritus accumulation in an even-aged, single-species forest

2017· article· en· W2623671388 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael S. Schaedel, Andrew J. Larson, Cullen J. Weisbrod, Robert E. Keane

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoarse woody debrisSnagThinningDetritusWoody plantEnvironmental scienceLarge woody debrisBiomass (ecology)UnderstoryEcologyTaigaForestryBiologyAgroforestryHabitatGeographyCanopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deadwood in forests influences fire intensity, stores carbon and nutrients, and provides wildlife habitat. We used a 54-year-old density management experiment in Larix occidentalis Nutt. forests to evaluate density dependence of woody detritus accumulation. Based on self-thinning theory, we expected woody detritus produced by the current stand to increase with stand density. Density-dependent woody detritus accumulation was apparent for fine woody debris and snags and for all woody detritus pools combined. Clear size–density relationships were apparent for coarse woody debris (CWD) and snags; mean piece size decreased with increasing stand density. Legacy CWD that originated from the preharvest old-growth stands accounted for about 45% of total woody detritus biomass. Live trees were largest in the low-density thinning treatments. Greater woody detritus biomass in the high-density and unthinned treatments originates primarily from past self-thinning, with additional inputs from density-dependent top breakage due to snow and ice and branch self-pruning. Because our results were driven by self-thinning mortality, the general trend of increasing woody detritus accumulation with increasing stand density should hold for maturing even-aged stands in other cool temperate and boreal forests.

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)0.000
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.206
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.126 · 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207