Stand composition and development stage affect fuel characteristics of quaking aspen forests in Utah, USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In western North America, quaking aspen stands ( Populus tremuloides Michx.) have predominantly been described as low flammability, “fireproof” forests, but the specific relationship between aspen stand composition, fuel characteristics, and potential fire behavior is not fully understood. We investigated surface and canopy fuel characteristics in 80 aspen stands in Utah, U.S., that spanned gradients of tree species composition from aspen to conifer dominance and stand development from early to late stages. We quantified fuel type and load, measured fuel moisture content in representative stands across two summer seasons, and modeled flame lengths in each stand. Fuel type and load varied greatly across stands, though late development, conifer-dominated stands had significantly higher (∼2–5 times) fine dead woody and litter load and significantly lower (∼2–5 times) live understory herbaceous load compared to pure aspen stands. Fuel moisture content did not vary by stand type. Modeled flame lengths were lowest in pure aspen stands, and flame lengths increased linearly with decreasing aspen composition, suggesting that potential surface fire behavior increases as a seral aspen stand progresses through succession to conifer dominance.
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 | 0.000 | 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".