MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4094596

Dead Wood in High-Boreal Labrador Black Spruce Forests – Buried And Forgotten?

2009· article· en· W4094596 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ulrike Hagemann, M. T. Moroni

Bibliographic record

VenueMinerva Pediatrica · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlack spruceTaigaBorealForestryGeographySnagDead woodEcologyEnvironmental scienceArchaeologyHabitatBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dead wood (DW), and in particular woody debris (WD), is an important component of the forest C cycle. In cool and wet climates, where microbial activity is restricted and moss growth is vigorous, large amounts of WD can be buried, i.e. overgrown by moss. Abundance, size, and decay class of DW buried in the organic layer were assessed in 15 stands of black spruce (Picea mariana (Mill.) BSP) in Labrador: 3 old-growth stands, and 12 stands regrown following clearcut harvesting (1970-72, 1989, and 2005) or wildfire (1985). Field measurements were based on Line Intersect Sampling and the Canadian National Forest Inventory Ground-plot Protocol. Harvested, burned, and old-growth sites contained 5.8ñ9.6, 4.7, and 18.2ñ37.3 Mg C ha-1 of buried dead wood (BW), respectively. Old-growth BW-C stocks largely exceeded total aboveground DW-C stocks (12.0 Mg C ha-1), indicating accumulation and/or preservation over long time periods. Stand-replacing fires, the predominant regional natural disturbance, burn only a portion of the organic layer and thus wood buried in it, potentially not interrupting the accumulation of BW over several stand generations. BW in old-growth sites was mainly in decay class 4 and 5, but decay class 2 and 3 BW contributed ~30% of total BW-C. A considerable portion of WD is hence buried before reaching more advanced stages of decay. Following burial, decay rates likely slow down considerably due to cold and moist conditions. BW accumulation appears to depend on a combination of climate (e.g., temperature, precipitation), micro-topography (e.g., drainage), ground vegetation (e.g., moss growth), and stand disturbance history (e.g., fire intensity and return interval). Excluding BW from DW inventories in cool and moist coniferous forests with a vigorous moss layer and long fire-return intervals such as found in high-boreal Labrador or coastal Scandinavia can result in massive underestimates of DW-C stocks.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMinerva PediatricaSame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207