MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2996686780 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2019-0181

Factors affecting post-fire regeneration after coppicing of cork oak (<i>Quercus suber</i>) trees in northeastern Algeria

2019· article· en· W2996686780 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Salah Eddine Roula, R. T. Bouhraoua, Filipe X. Catry

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
KeywordsQuercus suberCorkCoppicingMediterranean climateBasal areaGrazingBark (sound)Environmental scienceForestryQuercus petraeaPrescribed burnBiologyAgroforestryEcologyWoody plantGeographyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wildfires may have serious and long-lasting impacts in Mediterranean Basin oak forests. Although cork oak (Quercus suber L.) is usually considered a highly fire-resistant tree species, post-fire recovery is not guaranteed. We assessed the mortality and regeneration of 729 cork oak trees that burned and were cut in six sites with the objective of identifying the main factors affecting the short- to medium-term post-fire recovery. We used linear mixed models to investigate potential relationships among tree stump status at the end of the second and fifth growing seasons and several tree- and site-level variables. Overall tree mortality in the second year was 44% and was negatively affected by bark thickness and positively affected by root exposure, trunk injuries, and diameter, in decreasing order of importance. Between the second and fifth years, mortality increased to 53%, but this increase was only observed in sites with high grazing pressure. Grazing also had a strong negative impact on the growth of basal resprouts, thereby compromising tree recovery. The results give useful information on the need for application of adequate forest management practices (particularly avoiding debarking injuries, soil erosion, and grazing pressure) to increase the resilience of these ecosystems and reduce the negative economic and ecological impacts of wildfires.

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)0.001
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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations15
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicFire effects on ecosystems→French-language works237,207→