Topographic Variation in Forest Expansion Processes across a Mosaic Landscape in Western Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Changes to historic fire and grazing regimes have been associated with the expansion of tree cover at forest–grassland boundaries. We evaluated forest expansion across a mosaic landscape in western Canada using aerial photos, airborne laser scanning, and field transects. The annual rate of forest expansion (0.12%) was on the low end of rates documented across North America and was greater from the 1970s to the 1990s than from the 1990s to 2018. Most forest expansion occurred within 50 m of established forests, and 68% of all tree regeneration in grasslands was within 15 m of the forest edge. The intensity of cattle grazing did not affect the tree regeneration density. Despite the slow pace of land cover change, grassland areas near the forest edge had an average of 20% canopy cover and 9 m canopy height, indicating the presence of tall but sporadic trees. The rate of forest expansion, density of tree regeneration, and tree cover within grasslands were all greater at lower elevations where trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides) and white spruce (Picea glauca) were the dominant tree species. We conclude that proportions of forest–grassland cover on this landscape are not expected to change dramatically in the absence of major fire over the next several decades.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".