MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4398162491 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2024-0027

Prescribed fire effects on understory woody plants and fuels in <i>Quercus</i>–<i>Pinus</i> mixedwoods

2024· article· en· W4398162491 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Noah A Howie, J. Davis Goode, Justin L. Hart, Daniel C. Dey

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorthern Research StationU.S. Forest ServiceJoint Fire Science ProgramU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsUnderstoryPinus <genus>ForestryWoody plantEnvironmental scienceBotanyAgroforestryBiologyGeographyCanopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To enhance forest resilience to predicted increases in forest stressors, managers increasingly desire ecologically based restoration approaches that increase ecosystem adaptation potential. Mixedwood stands, which contain a range of life history and functional traits, may be more resistant and resilient to ecosystem stressors. Management of Quercus–Pinus mixedwood stands includes the use of prescribed fire, which requires an understanding of vegetation-fuels-fire feedbacks in these ecosystems. However, a paucity of knowledge exists on the intra-stand spatial patterns of fire effects. We analyzed the effects of a newly initiated prescribed fire program on the intra-stand characteristics of understory woody plants and fuelbed composition and loading in a long-unburned Quercus –Pinus mixedwood stand in Tennessee, USA. We sampled vegetation and fuels in two plots, one that experienced two prescribed fires (burned plot), and one fire-excluded plot directly adjacent (unburned plot). On the burned plot, we recorded lower sapling and seedling densities across taxa. Spatial analysis of advance reproduction in the burned plot indicated a combination of patchy fire effects, canopy openings, and high-light understory environments. We documented significant reductions in total fuel mass. The combination of spatial analysis and ordination revealed that prescribed fires homogenized fuel loads within the burned plot.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicFire effects on ecosystems→French-language works237,207→