Spatial contiguity and continuity of canopy gaps in mixed wood boreal forests: persistence, expansion, shrinkage and displacement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary 1. Variation in forest gap size and duration are a result of spatial contiguity and continuity of gap infilling and tree mortality over time, which influences both species recruitment and successional pathways. 2. As many gaps in boreal forests are small, their size and duration will affect the conditions influencing species recruitment. We investigate the spatial dynamics of these gaps (i.e. those which are persistent, ephemeral, expanding, displaced or disappearing) and tested whether gap spatio‐temporal patterns are consistent over different temporal periods (1998–2003 and 2003–2007). 3. Forest canopy gaps were reconstructed for three plots (10, 10 and 6 ha in size) in southern boreal mixedwood forests around Lake Duparquet, north‐western Quebec (Canada), using a time series of high‐resolution canopy surface profiles from three light and ranging detection (lidar) system surveys during a 9‐year window. High‐resolution images were used to individually identify early and late successional gap makers. Dynamic changes in canopy gaps over a 9‐year period were investigated by implementing concepts of random set theory within a temporal GIS framework. Mortality was higher on the gap edges than in the forest interior, and shade tolerant species were more likely to be gap makers than shade intolerant species. Edge trees that died causing the expansion of gaps were much smaller than trees creating new gaps. Although the overall gap size distribution was consistent over the 9 years studied, the proportion of the total area opening and closing varied between periods. Independent analyses of time windows show an abundance of small gaps (below 40 m2) appearing and disappearing; however, analysis of spatial contiguity shows that the majority (over 80%) of gaps of all sizes were displaced and/or expanded. 4. Synthesis. Contrary to the previous perception that small gaps are ephemeral, which would favour the recruitment of late successional species, our findings indicate that gap displacement and expansion may be a mechanism explaining the maintenance of favourable conditions for the recruitment of shade intolerant individuals, which has been previously observed in high‐latitude old‐growth boreal forests.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".