Long-term soil response to variable-retention harvesting in the EMEND (Ecosystem Management Emulating Natural Disturbance) experiment, northwestern Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kishchuk, B. E., Quideau, S., Wang, Y. and Prescott, C. 2014. Long-term soil response to variable-retention harvesting in the EMEND (Ecosystem Management Emulating Natural Disturbance) experiment, northwestern Alberta. Can. J. Soil Sci. 94: 263-279. We report on soil responses to variable-retention (VR) harvesting from a large-scale experiment (>1000 ha). Samples were taken prior to treatment, and 1 and 6 yr after treatment under cover types representing the successional trajectory for boreal mixedwood forests in northwestern Alberta, Canada. Variable-retention harvesting at six overstory-retention levels [100 (control), 75, 50, 20, 10, and 0% (clearcut)] were applied to 10-ha experimental units under four cover types: deciduous-dominated (80-95% trembling aspen); deciduous-dominated with coniferous understory (80-95% trembling aspen with white spruce understory at 60-80% of full stocking); mixed coniferous-deciduous (35-65% of each); and coniferous-dominated (80-95% white spruce). Only a few clear differences in soil properties attributable to VR harvesting were evident 6 yr post-harvest: (1) both extractable NH4-N in forest floor and 0-7 cm mineral-soil, and forest floor exchangeable K decreased with increasing canopy removal, and (2) forest floor exchangeable Ca increased with canopy removal. There was a decreasing trend in forest floor and mineral soil C (kg ha-1) in undisturbed stands between 1998 and 2005. Differences in soil properties among cover types included higher pH and N concentration in forest floors, and higher cation exchange capacity and exchangeable Ca and Mg in mineral soils in deciduous-dominated stands. Deciduous-dominated stands appear to have distinct soil properties that change under stand development.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".