MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2908391491 · doi:10.3390/f10010019

Management Implications of Using Brush Mats for Soil Protection on Machine Operating Trails during Mechanized Cut-to-Length Forest Operations

2018· article· en· W2908391491 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Eric R. Labelle, Dirk Jaeger

Bibliographic record

VenueForests · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaTechnische Universität MünchenFPInnovationsDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsTOPSEnvironmental scienceBrushBiomass (ecology)BioenergyRenewable energyAgricultural engineeringEngineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mechanized cut-to-length forest operations often rely on the use of brush mats created from harvesting debris (tree limbs, tops, and foliage) to reduce soil disturbances as a result of in-stand machine traffic. These brush mats, placed directly on the forest floor within machine operating trails, distribute loads of timber harvesting and extraction machinery to a greater area, thereby reducing peak pressures exerted to the ground and rutting for maintaining technical trafficability of operating trails. Forest biomass has also been promoted as a source of green and renewable energy, to reduce carbon emissions from energy production. However, to maintain sufficient quality of biomass for bioenergy operations (high heating value and low ash content), brush needs to be free of contaminants such as mineral soil. This constraint eliminates the possibility of the dual use of brush, first as a soil protective layer on machine operating trails and afterwards for bioenergy generation. Leaving machine operating trails uncovered will cause machine loads to be fully and directly applied to the soil, thus increasing the likelihood of severe soil disturbance, tree growth impediment and reducing trail trafficability. The main objective of this study was to quantify the effect of varying machine operating trail spacing and width on the amount of brush required for soil protection. This was achieved by creating five model forest stands (four mature and one immature), commonly found in New Brunswick, Canada, and using their characteristics as input in the Biomass Opportunity and Supply Model (BiOS) from FPInnovations. BiOS provided several key biomass related outputs allowing the determination of the amount of biomass available for soil protection, which was the main focus of this research. The simulation results showed that regardless of trail area tested, all four mature forest stands were able to support uniform distribution of 20 kg m−2 brush mats (green mass) throughout their entire trail network during clear-cut operations but not during partial harvests. From the three factors assessed (brush amount, trail width, and trail spacing), trail width had the highest effect on the required brush amount for trail protection, which in turn has a direct impact on the amount of brush that could be used for bioenergy generation.

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)0.001
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 score0.221
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations16
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestsSame topicForest Biomass Utilization and ManagementFrench-language works237,207