Silviculture treatments hasten seedling growth on seismic disturbances in boreal treed fens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seismic lines in western Canada's boreal region are linear disturbances that affect the habitat of threatened woodland caribou ( Rangifer tarandus caribou ). To hasten the return of forest cover and ultimately to restore caribou habitat, restoration managers use silviculture treatments in wet areas that involve the mechanical mounding of seismic lines to create artificial hummocks. Tree planting then takes place on top of these hummocks. However, the effectiveness of this silviculture technique for restoring seismic lines in peatlands is largely untested. Here we sampled incremental height growth of coniferous seedlings at 41 seismic line plots in poor and rich treed fens in northeast Alberta, Canada. We compared lines that had been treated with inverted mounding (a type of mechanical mounding) and subsequent tree planting, to nearby lines that were left untreated for natural recovery. We used generalized linear mixed models to test the effect of silviculture treatments on 5‐year growth increments of black spruce ( Picea mariana ) and tamarack ( Larix laricina ). Overall, we found that mounding and tree planting improved seedling growth compared to seismic lines regenerating naturally. However, growth responses were found to vary by species, ecosite, initial seedling size, and light availability. This suggests that site‐specific prioritization of mounding within peatlands may be more efficient considering the widespread nature of seismic lines. Future experiments testing growth responses to other mounding techniques that are designed to preserve the soil profile. It is also important for managers to weigh restoration goals beyond tree establishment and an accelerated return to forest cover.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".