Contributions of fire refugia to resilient ponderosa pine and dry mixed‐conifer forest landscapes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Altered fire regimes can drive major and enduring compositional shifts or losses of forest ecosystems. In western North America, ponderosa pine and dry mixed‐conifer forest types appear increasingly vulnerable to uncharacteristically extensive, high‐severity wildfire. However, unburned or only lightly impacted forest stands that persist within burn mosaics—termed fire refugia—may serve as tree seed sources and promote landscape recovery. We sampled tree regeneration along gradients of fire refugia proximity and density at 686 sites within the perimeters of 12 large wildfires that occurred between 2000 and 2005 in the interior western United States. We used generalized linear mixed‐effects models to elucidate statistical relationships between tree regeneration and refugia pattern, including a new metric that incorporates patch proximity and proportional abundance. These relationships were then used to develop a spatially explicit landscape simulation model. We found that regeneration by ponderosa pine and obligate‐seeding mixed‐conifer tree species assemblages was strongly and positively predicted by refugia proximity and density. Simulation models revealed that for any given proportion of the landscape occupied by refugia, small patches produced greater landscape recovery than large patches. These results highlight the disproportionate importance of small, isolated islands of surviving trees, which may not be detectable with coarse‐scale satellite imagery. Findings also illustrate the interplay between patch‐scale resistance and landscape‐scale resilience: Disturbance‐resistant settings (fire refugia) can entrain resilience (forest regeneration) across the burn matrix. Implications and applications for land managers and conservation practitioners include strategies for the promotion and maintenance of fire refugia as components of resilient forest landscapes.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".