No effect of liming on the Eastern Red-backed Salamander after 5 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last decades, the application of calcitic materials to soil to restore the vigor of Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum Marsh) trees has increased in northeastern North America. However, few studies have evaluated how this treatment affects other ecosystem components, especially over several years. In Sugar Maple stands, the Eastern Red-backed Salamander (Plethodon cinereus Green, 1818) is one of the most abundant vertebrates and an important terrestrial species for key ecological processes. Because the species commonly serves as an indicator of forest disturbances, it is important to know how anthropogenic disturbances, such as soil liming, might affect it. The goal of this study was to evaluate the medium-term (5-year) effects of liming on body condition in a wild population of P. cinereus in Quebec, Canada. Lime (CaCO3) was spread by helicopter on a declining Sugar Maple forest growing on an acidic and base-poor soil. The results of this study, combined with those of previous published works, show that liming has no short- or medium-term effects on the body condition of the Eastern Red-backed Salamander. This study adds to those on other species in Europe and northeastern North America that report that liming has no major effect on amphibians when it is used as a treatment to restore acidified forest ecosystems. This should help foresters decide whether or not liming treatments are compatible with conservation, ecological, and management objectives.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".