Species-Specific Responses to Human Trampling Indicate Alpine Plant Size Is More Sensitive than Reproduction to Disturbance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human disturbance, such as trampling, is an integral component of global change, yet we lack a comprehensive understanding of its effects on alpine ecosystems. Many alpine systems are seeing a rapid increase in recreation and in understudied regions, such as the Coast Mountains of British Columbia, yet disturbance impacts on alpine plants remain unclear. We surveyed disturbed (trail-side) and undisturbed (off-trail) transects along elevational gradients of popular hiking trails in the T’ak’t’ak’múy’in tl’a In’inyáxa7n region (Garibaldi Provincial Park), Canada, focusing on dominant shrubs (Phyllodoce empetriformis, Cassiope mertensiana, Vaccinium ovalifolium) and graminoids (Carex spp). We used a hierarchical Bayesian framework to test for disturbance by elevation effects on total plant percent cover, maximum plant height and diameter (growth proxies), and buds, flowers, and fruits (reproduction proxies). We found that trampling reduces plant cover and impacts all species, but that effects vary by species and trait, and disturbance effects only vary with elevation for one species’ trait. Growth traits are more sensitive to trampling than reproductive traits, which may lead to differential impacts on population persistence and species-level fitness outcomes. Our study highlights that disturbance responses are species-specific, and this knowledge can help land managers minimize disturbance impacts on sensitive vegetation types.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".