Temporal changes in forest floor carbon stocks following scarification in boreal lichen woodlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Uncertainties remain regarding the carbon (C) loss due to scarification in afforested lichen woodlands (LW), which originate from regeneration failures of closed-crown black spruce- feathermoss stands due to compounded disturbances. Therefore, the objective of this study was to characterize the C stock changes in the forest floor of scarified, unharvested LWs. Ten afforestation trials were established from 1999 to 2014 in LWs in the managed boreal forest of Québec. Ground surface layers were sampled in 2017 for different microsites. From 3 to 18 years after treatment, scarified floors exhibited ≈ 2 Mg ha−1 C loss, due to opposite trends in the furrow and ridge microsites. Both gradually approached the undisturbed C density level of forest floor between furrow pairs and between skidder trails microsites without reaching it after 18 years. This suggests that microsite C density continued to evolve afterward, and that losses due to scarification might be recovered, due to a higher potential gain in the furrow microsites combined with a lower expected loss in the ridge microsites. Carbon managers should use a permanent 2 Mg ha−1 C loss in the forest floor due to scarification in LWs, acknowledging that this is offset by the growth of planted trees.
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) | 0.001 | 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".