Wildfire disturbance reveals evidence of ecosystem resilience and precariousness in a forest–grassland mosaic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Forest and grassland ecosystems are sometimes located adjacently within the same climate. In Interior British Columbia, Canada, there are complex forest–grassland mosaics within the Interior Douglas‐fir biogeoclimatic zone. Historically, both grassland and forest ecosystems experienced high‐frequency, low‐severity fire regimes. Since European settlement and introduction of livestock grazing and fire exclusion, trees have encroached on grasslands, and tree densities in forests have increased. In this study, we characterize plant communities and near‐surface soil moisture in forest and grassland sites, and in historical grassland sites affected by tree encroachment. We hypothesized that spatial and temporal patterns of near‐surface soil moisture are reflected in aboveground plant community composition and structure. After initial sampling of soil moisture and plant communities, the study area was burned in a wildfire. Applying a multifactorial approach to comparing adjacent grassland and forest sites, we treated the wildfire event as a natural experiment, sampling post‐wildfire plant species composition and soil moisture, and measuring the severity and spatial heterogeneity of surface burn conditions. Evidence supports the concept of mutually exclusive fire‐reinforced bistable grassland and forest states, with greater spatial heterogeneity of soil moisture and burn severity in forests, and highly uniform patterns of soil moisture, vegetation, and burn severity in grasslands. Areas of forest encroachment on grasslands had understory plant communities dominated by exotic species, while restored grasslands had native bunchgrass cover like typical grasslands of the region. Additionally, there was post‐wildfire divergence of forest‐ and grassland‐associated plant communities. Viewed through a resilience theory conceptual framework, we suggest that ecosystem legacies are reinforcing post‐wildfire ecosystem identity and associated native plant communities. External factors—particularly past heavy livestock grazing and fire suppression—have caused ecosystem precariousness that can be addressed with management actions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".