Airborne laser scanning reveals uniform responses of forest structure to moose (Alces alces) across the boreal forest biome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. The moose Alces alces is the largest herbivore in the boreal forest biome, where it can have dramatic impacts on ecosystem structure and dynamics. Despite the importance of the boreal forest biome in global carbon cycling, the impacts of moose have only been studied in disparate regional exclosure experiments, leading to calls for common analyses across a biome-wide network of moose exclosures.\n2. In this study, we use airborne laser scanning (ALS) to analyse forest canopy responses to moose across 100 paired exclosure-control experimental plots distributed across the boreal biome, including sites in the United States (Isle Royale), Canada (Quebec, Newfoundland), Norway, Sweden and Finland.\n3. We test the hypotheses that canopy height, vertical complexity and above-ground biomass (AGB) are all reduced by moose and that the impacts vary with moose density, productivity, temperature and pulse disturbances such as logging and insect outbreaks.\n4. We find a surprising convergence in forest canopy response to moose. Moose had negative impacts on canopy height, complexity and AGB as expected. The responses of canopy complexity and AGB were consistent across regions and did not vary along environmental gradients. The difference in canopy height between exclosures and open plots was on average 6 cm per year since the start of exclosure treatment (±2.1 SD). This rate increased with temperature, but only when moose density was high.\n5. The difference in AGB between moose exclosures and open plots was 0.306 Mg ha−1 year−1 (±0.079). In browsed plots, stand AGB was 32% of that in the exclosures, a difference of 2.09 Mg ha−1. The uniform response allows scaling of the estimate to a biome-wide impact of moose of the loss of 448 (±115) Tg per year, or 224 Tg of carbon.\n6. Synthesis: Analysis of ALS data from distributed exclosure experiments identified a largely uniform response of forest canopies to moose across regions, facilitating scaling of moose impacts across the whole biome. This is an important step towards incorporating the effect of the largest boreal herbivore on the carbon cycling of one of the world's largest terrestrial biomes.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".