MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210442483 · doi:10.3390/f13020251

Direct and Indirect Effects of Habitat Disturbances on Caribou Terrestrial Forage Lichens in Montane Forests of British Columbia

2022· article· en· W4210442483 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Deborah Cichowski, Glenn D. Sutherland, R. Scott McNay, Randy Sulyma

Bibliographic record

VenueForests · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFisheries and Oceans CanadaHabitat Conservation Trust FoundationBC Hydro
KeywordsLichenEdaphicPinus contortaEcologySnagHabitatEnvironmental scienceAbundance (ecology)ForageThreatened speciesAgroforestryGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cumulative effects of increased forest harvesting, mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae; MPB) outbreaks, and wildfire in low-elevation lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) forests could limit long-term winter habitat supply for the northern group of southern mountain caribou (Rangifer tarandus). In a 17 year longitudinal study of vegetation remeasurements at eight sites in north-central and west-central British Columbia (BC), we assessed responses of terrestrial caribou forage lichen abundances to nine forest harvesting treatments and one prescribed burn 8–14 years following treatment, as well as to MPB attack. Overall, after initially declining following forest harvesting, mean forage lichen abundance increased between 1 and 2 years post-harvest and 13 and 14 years post-harvest at 10 of 11 site/treatment combinations. Mean forage lichen abundance decreased following MPB attack at all sites. Biophysical factors influencing rates of lichen recovery post-disturbance include site type (transitional vs. edaphic), a reduction in favourable conditions for moss recovery, level of MPB attack, and both seasonal timing and method of forest harvesting. When considering effects of forest harvesting on forage lichens, objectives of silvicultural management strategies should focus on protecting and retaining terrestrial lichens at edaphic sites and on re-establishing terrestrial lichens at transitional sites.

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 score0.734
Threshold uncertainty score0.889

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestsSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207