Initial Effects of Clearcutting and Partial Retention Forest Harvesting Methods on Some Small Mammals in Northern British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
British Columbia’s interior forests have been heavily subjected to logging, burning, and beetle outbreaks for decades. Partial retention forest harvesting may be a method that could mitigate some of the negative effects of clearcut harvesting on wildlife. We conducted live trapping for small mammals at John Prince Research Forest in north-central BC to estimate species diversity, population density, and habitat use across a gradient of overstory tree retention. We detected 7 species, with diversity highest in the uncut forest (control) relative to the clearcut (control mean Shannon Index = 1.01, SE = 0.14) and partial retention treatments (30% and 60% retention, mean Shannon Indices = 0.99, 0.98; SE = 0.17, 0.17), and significantly lower in the seed tree treatment (mean = 0.63, SE = 0.17, p = 0.02). Greater population densities of North American deer mouse (Peromyscus sonoriensis) and southern red-backed vole (Myodes gapperi) in partially harvested stands, as estimated with spatially explicit capture-recapture models, support these practices for supporting populations of forest specialists. More experimental approaches to forest operations are needed across larger spatial scales, such as adaptive management of forest harvest methods with rigorous wildlife monitoring to ensure ecological objectives are met.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".