Carbon dynamics of Western North American boreal forests in response to stand-replacing disturbances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
North American boreal forests are known to be an important carbon pool in boreal ecosystems, but have experienced extensive tree mortality and carbon loss due to multiple agents of stand-replacing disturbances in recent decades. However, the impacts of these stand-replacing disturbances on forest dynamics are still unknown. We used a recently developed remote-sensing based stand-replacing disturbance product, coupled with aboveground biomass (AGB), gross primary productivity (GPP) and leaf area index (LAI) datasets to estimate the impacts of stand-replacing disturbances (e.g., fires, logging and insect outbreaks) on the carbon balance of western North American boreal forests during 2000–2012. Our results showed that fire, logging and insect outbreaks resulted in AGB losses of 23.4, 16.6, and 4.7 Tg/yr, respectively. In the post-disturbance periods, AGB did not recover to its pre-disturbed levels in the 10th year, which is longer than the recovery time of GPP and LAI. Furthermore, the losses of AGB, GPP and LAI in fire events were the dominant factors for forest recovery after stand-replacing fire. Vapor Pressure Deficit (VPD), soil clay content, temperature and precipitation were the important factors for forest recovery after stand-replacing insect outbreaks and stand-replacing logging. When removing the impact of environmental factors, our results showed a smaller magnitude of AGB, GPP and LAI loss relative to the results including these factors, although similar recovery trajectories were observed among the two results. The results have important implications for understanding the effects of stand-replacing disturbances on the carbon dynamics of boreal forests, which is required to adopt effective forest management strategies after disturbance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".