MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3040074420 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2019-0417

The effects of variable retention forestry on coarse woody debris dynamics and concomitant impacts on American marten habitat after 27 years

2020· article· en· W3040074420 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Ingrid Farnell, Ché Elkin, Erica Lilles, Anne-Marie Roberts, Michelle Venter

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsMinistry of ForestsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCoarse woody debrisSnagBasal areaMartenWindthrowForestryHabitatEnvironmental scienceForest managementEcologyGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coarse woody debris (CWD) in the form of logs, downed wood, stumps and large tree limbs is an important structural habitat feature for many small mammal species, including the American marten (Martes americana). At a long-term experimental trial in northern temperate hemlock-cedar forests of British Columbia, Canada, we analysed the impact of varying amounts of overstory basal area retention: 0% (clearcut), 40%, 70%, and 100% (unharvested) on CWD volume, decay class, and inputs from windthrow over 27 years. We used CWD attributes (diameter, length, decay class, and height above the ground) known to be favourable for martens to create an index for assessing the impact of harvesting intensity on CWD habitat features. Stands with 70% retention had CWD attributes that resulted in CWD habitat features similar to unharvested stands. Clearcuts contained pieces that were smaller, more decayed, and closer to the ground, which contributed to a habitat that was less valuable, compared with stands that had higher retention. Over the 27-year period, windthrown trees were the majority of CWD inputs, and volume change was positively related to percent retention. Our results highlight that forest management influences CWD size and input dynamics over multiple decades, and the need for consideration of these impacts when undertaking long-term multiple-use forestry planning.

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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies→French-language works237,207→