MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393119247 · doi:10.1007/s10980-024-01882-4

Cut vs. fire: a comparative study of the temporal effects of timber harvest and wildfire on ecological indicators of the boreal forest

2024· article· en· W4393119247 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ian Nicholas Best, Leonie Brown, Ché Elkin, Laura Finnegan, Cameron J. R. McClelland, Chris J. Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueLandscape Ecology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsAlberta Ministry of Agriculture and ForestryGovernment of AlbertaUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLandscape ecologyTaigaBorealEcologyGeographyFire ecologyNature ConservationFire regimeEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental resource managementAgroforestryForestryEcosystemBiologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Context Large-scale natural disturbances are crucial drivers of ecosystem function and composition for many forested ecosystems. In the last century, the prevalence of anthropogenic disturbances has increased across Canada’s boreal forest. Habitat disturbance from timber harvest and wildfire is linked to declines of boreal species, including woodland caribou ( Rangifer tarandus caribou ). Objectives We tested how disturbances influenced the recovery trajectory of ecological indicators of timber, biodiversity, and wildlife habitat through time following timber harvest and wildfire across the boreal forest of Alberta, Canada. Methods During 2021 and 2022, we collected field data from 251 timber harvested and 264 burned stands (0–40 years since disturbance), as well as 256 older forest stands used by caribou (> 40 years since disturbance). Field data included metrics of stand attributes (e.g., basal area, stems per hectare), coarse woody debris (CWD), and abundance of forage for caribou, moose ( Alces americanus ), and bears (black bear: Ursus americanus , grizzly bear: Ursus arctos ). Results Basal area of trees and stems per hectare recovered more quickly in timber harvest sites when compared to wildfire sites, but as time since disturbance increased there were no differences in these attributes among timber harvest, wildfire, and caribou use sites. CWD was greatest in recently burned sites, but declined over time to be similar in quantity as in harvested stands and older forest stands. Terrestrial lichens, important forage for caribou, were most abundant in the older caribou use sites, whereas forage for moose and bears, including shrubs, was most abundant in younger timber harvest and wildfire sites. Conclusions Our results demonstrate that timber harvesting may result in a quicker development of timber volume when compared to wildfire. However, this anthropogenic disturbance is less advantageous for the development of caribou habitat.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.644

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLandscape EcologySame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207