MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965500973 · doi:10.3897/aca.2.e38519

Long term effect of fire severity on carabid and lichen assemblages

2019· article· en· W2965500973 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dominique Arseneault

Bibliographic record

VenueARPHA Conference Abstracts · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLichenCrown (dentistry)BiodiversityEcologyBiologyEnvironmental scienceBayGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Variation in fire severity strongly influences post-fire forest development. The resulting fine scale forest heterogeneity could impact biodiversity over long periods after fire events. In the James Bay area of northern Québec, differential seed mortality caused by high and low crown fire severity resulted in dramatic variation in regeneration density of both jack pine and black spruce. Sixty years after such fire event, we show that composition of lichen and carabid assemblages varied significantly between areas of high (c. 2600 stems/ha) and low (c. 560 stems/ha) stem density established by differential crown fire severity. The carabids, Notiophilus semistriatus and Miscodera arctica, were found in low stem density areas while Carabus taedatus and Pterostichus brevicornis were found in high stem density areas. Amount of bare ground was higher in low stem density area which may favor active visual diurnal hunters such as Notiophilus species. Cladonia rangiferina and C. stellaris were associated with high stem density area while C. uncialis and C. mitis were associated with low stem density area. This likely reflects the fact that photosynthetic rate of C. rangiferina is optimal under shady areas whereas C. uncialis is better adapted to hot, dry and sunny conditions. Thus, variation in fire behavior led to long-lasting variation in forest conditions that clearly affected both lichen and carabid assemblages even 60 years after fire.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0010.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations14
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueARPHA Conference AbstractsSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207