Structure and composition of edges next to regenerating clear‐cuts in mixed‐wood boreal forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. We investigated the spatial and temporal pattern of edge influence on primary (forest structure) and secondary (understory structure and composition) responses at forest edges next to regenerating clear‐cuts in Populus‐dominated boreal forest in Alberta, Canada. We used before/after‐harvest comparisons to determine whether there were significant effects of edge creation in the first and second year after harvest. We also investigated 5‐ and 16‐yr‐old edges to determine whether their structure and composition were significantly different from interior forest. Distance of edge influence (20–60 m) was not extensive compared to findings from studies conducted in other forest types. In the first two years after harvest, there were significant primary responses to edge creation including increased tree mortality, snag breakage and amount of downed coarse woody debris; as well as secondary responses including prolific vegetative regeneration of Populus spp. and a decrease in total shrub cover. Significant edge effects were still detectable 5 and 16 yr after edge creation, despite the rapid regeneration of Populus‐ dominated forest in the adjacent clear‐cuts. These older edges showed evidence of past primary and secondary responses, including a more heterogeneous canopy, along with additional changes in under‐ story composition. At both younger and older edges the distance of edge influence was greater for secondary responses (up to 60 m) than for primary responses (10–20 m). We hypothesize that secondary responses to edge creation start later than primary responses and that the distance of edge influence is greater for secondary (vs. primary) responses.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".