MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3039001488 · doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118358

A topographic moisture index explains understory vegetation response to retention harvesting

2020· article· en· W3039001488 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Laureen F. I. Echiverri, S. Ellen Macdonald

Bibliographic record

VenueForest Ecology and Management · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta InnovatesAlberta Agriculture and ForestryAlberta Conservation AssociationUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of New Brunswick
KeywordsUnderstoryEnvironmental scienceDeciduousVegetation (pathology)BorealBiodiversityWater contentAbundance (ecology)EcologyCanopyGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To inform biodiversity conservation efforts in managed forest landscapes, we explore if a topographic moisture index (depth-to-water, based on remotely-sensed (LIDAR) data) can provide insight into responses of understory vegetation to retention harvesting in the boreal mixedwood forests of northwestern Alberta, Canada. Sample plots were placed along the depth-to-water moisture gradient in three forest types: coniferous, mixedwood, and deciduous (broadleaf), and in four retention harvesting treatments: unharvested (control), 50% (dispersed green-tree) retention, 20% retention, and clearcut (2% retention). Understory diversity, abundance, and composition were assessed 15 years after harvest. Harvesting affected the relationships between understory variables and the depth-to-water index, with the effects differing between forest types. Coniferous stands showed the most dramatic responses to harvesting, in that most relationships between understory attributes and the depth-to-water index changed due to harvesting. For instance, harvested coniferous stands had higher diversity on wetter sites, rather than on drier sites as was seen in the unharvested stands. In mixedwood stands only the relationship between composition and depth-to-water was affected by harvesting. Broadleaf stands were intermediate; abundance and composition showed a significant depth-to-water by harvesting treatment interaction. Abundance and depth-to-water relationships were weaker in harvested, as compared to unharvested, broadleaf stands. Within each forest type, the effects of harvesting also varied along the depth-to-water gradient. In coniferous and mixedwood forest types, wetter sites were most sensitive to harvesting while in broadleaf stands drier sites were more sensitive. Our study shows that the depth-to-water index can be used to better understand and predict the response of understory vegetation to harvesting and can be useful for guiding the placement of retention.

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 score0.244
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForest Ecology and ManagementSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207