MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2747386246 · doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12999

Bryophyte abundance, diversity and composition after retention harvest in boreal mixedwood forest

2017· article· en· W2747386246 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Samuel F. Bartels, S. Ellen Macdonald, Derek Johnson, Richard T. Caners, John R. Spence

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Ecology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBryophyte Studies and Records
Canadian institutionsRoyal Alberta MuseumCanadian Forest ServiceUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Resources CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Agriculture and Forestry
KeywordsBryophyteSpecies richnessBorealBiodiversityDeciduousTaigaBasal areaEnvironmental scienceEcologyAbundance (ecology)LichenBiologyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Variable‐retention harvest is widely recognized as an alternative to more intensive methods such as clear‐cutting. However, present information is inadequate to judge the impact of variable retention on biodiversity of indigenous forest organisms intolerant of canopy removal, such as forest‐inhabiting bryophytes. We examined how bryophyte species cover, richness, diversity and composition change with time in response to a broad range of dispersed retention harvest treatments (2% [clear‐cut], 10%, 20%, 50%, 75% retention of original basal area) contrasted with uncut controls [100% retention]) in broadleaf deciduous, mixedwood and conifer‐dominated boreal forests in North West Alberta, Canada. Bryophytes were studied in 432 permanent sample plots within 72 compartments before harvest and at 3, 6 and 11 years after harvest. Clear‐cut and lower (10% and 20%) retention levels resulted in lower cover and richness of bryophytes than in unharvested control compartments in mixed and conifer‐dominated forests, but less so in deciduous‐dominated forests, which generally supported low cover and richness. Species composition in each forest type varied along the gradient of harvesting intensity; clear‐cuts and lower levels of retention supported similar composition, as did control plots and those representing higher retention levels. Over time, the retention harvest treatments became more similar to uncut controls. Synthesis and applications. Variable‐retention harvests can better maintain bryophyte biodiversity in managed boreal mixedwood forests, as compared to clear‐cuts. We found the efficacy of retention harvest scaled with harvest intensity. Higher levels of retention better moderated the negative impacts of harvesting on bryophyte assemblages across all forest types. Our results suggest, however, that even 10% retention will facilitate faster post‐harvest recovery of bryophytes, as compared to clear‐cutting.

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 score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations37
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied EcologySame topicBryophyte Studies and RecordsFrench-language works237,207