Geographically Widespread Drift Log Destruction of Intertidal Communities on Rocky Shores of Western Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The destructive effect of drift logs on several rocky shore intertidal communities first identified in 1971 by Dayton in the north‐east Pacific Ocean has received little further attention despite its ecological and conservational significance. Using satellite imagery from 202 sites along western Canada's coastline, we observed widespread log accumulation at the tideline, with an average of 311 logs/km (max: 2718) on sandy shores and 194 logs/km (max: 1238) on rocky shores, independent of proximity to human settlement and industrial activity. Historical analyses of archival photographs reveal a 520% increase in drift log abundance since the late 19th century and an estimated 800% (range 0%–4000%) increase since pre‐European settlement, trends that correlate with the expansion of forestry operations over the past century. Populations of key intertidal foundation species, Balanus glandula , Semibalanus cariosus, which support a taxonomically diverse interstitial community, were 20%–80% lower on log‐exposed surfaces compared to immediately adjacent log‐protected microhabitats such as crevices, with the most pronounced reductions occurring in middle and upper intertidal zones. During high tides and storm conditions, over 90% of the drift logs stranded at the high tideline can be re‐mobilized and transported to other shores, intensifying their abrasive effects on the intertidal habitats. While future higher resolution remote sensing will refine assessments of drift log impacts, our current findings indicate that ongoing log‐induced abrasion has significantly degraded intertidal communities across most rocky shores in western Canada. This degradation likely has cascading negative effects on both aquatic and terrestrial species that depend on these habitats for foraging.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".