MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3028136143 · doi:10.3390/f11050578

Ecosystem Management of Eastern Canadian Boreal Forests: Potential Impacts on Wind Damage

2020· article· en· W3028136143 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jean‐Claude Ruel

Bibliographic record

VenueForests · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTree Root and Stability Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsWindthrowEcosystemDisturbance (geology)Ecosystem managementForest managementEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental resource managementForest ecologyEcologyAgroforestryGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research Highlights: Windthrow can interfere significantly with ecosystem management practices. In some cases, their goal could still be reached but this may prove more complex in other cases, like the partial cutting of old-growth stands. In situations where windthrow is common without any human intervention, the use of partial cutting to maintain some stand structures may lead to a feedback loop leading to additional windthrow. Background and Objectives: Forest ecosystem management using natural disturbances as a template has become the management paradigm in many regions. Most of the time, the focus is on fire regime and effects. However, windthrow can be common in some places or can interfere with practices implemented in an ecosystem management strategy. This paper looks at interactions between ecosystem management and windthrow. Materials and Methods: The paper builds on three case studies looking at various elements that could be part of ecosystem management strategies. The first one looks at the impact of green tree retention, while the second one looks at the impact of reducing the size and dispersing clearcuts, and the last one examines the impact of a range of cutting practices in irregular old-growth stands. Results: Green tree retention leads to increased windthrow, especially when applied within mature even-aged stands. Reducing the size of clearcuts and dispersing them over the landscape also involves substantial windthrow along edges. Partial cutting in old-growth stands can lead to relatively high mortality, but part of it is not necessarily related to wind since it occurs as standing dead trees. Differences in the amount of damage with tree size and species have been found and could be used to reduce wind damage. Conclusions: Approaches to minimize wind damage in ecosystem management can be designed using existing knowledge. However, using windthrow as a template to design management strategies would prove more complex.

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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.205
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestsSame topicTree Root and Stability StudiesFrench-language works237,207