Historical trends in willow cover along streams in a Southwestern Montana cattle allotment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concern over the apparent scarcity of tall willows [Salix sp.] prompted changes in livestock grazing management in a southwestern Montana mountain valley to avoid degradation of riparian and aquatic habitats. We assessed potential improvement in the abundance of tall willows following implementation of a new management strategy by determining the effect of historic grazing patterns on willow canopy along streams within the USDA Forest Service Long Creek cattle grazing allotment. The study area was dominated by Salix geyerana, S. boothii, Carex spp., and Poa pratensis. Willow canopy cover by stream reach was measured from aerial photos taken in 1942, 1965, and 1987. Cover from each year was compared for change over the 46-year record. Willow canopy cover fluctuated along the streams in the allotment, but the general trend was upward from 1942 to 1987. Willow stem population demography was evaluated to ascertain whether historic grazing patterns had affected stem replacement. Stem age classes were normally distributed with a replacement cycle similar to those reported in other areas of the western USA and Canada. These data sets suggest that extended periods of rest (>3 years) are not necessary for willow recovery if livestock or wildlife use is closely controlled.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".