Forest edge effects on <i>Quercus</i> reproduction within naturally regenerated mixed broadleaf stands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the influence of forest edge on the development of tree reproduction and the use of edge as a silvicultural tool for manipulating regeneration outcomes. Oak (Quercus spp.) reproduction was sampled 9 years following edge establishment along transects extending from 8 m into clearcut openings to 40 m into the adjacent intact forest. Trends showed that oak reproduction height in the intact forest was inversely related to distance from edge up to 20 m into the intact forest. Observed oak reproduction densities were greater within 20 m of edge than in distance intervals further into the intact forest. Tree-ring analysis of 106 seedlings was used to evaluate temporal responses associated with edge development. Cross-sectional analysis indicated a mean age of 13 years, 3 years prior to edge establishment. Increased growth was associated with edge establishment, and 10-year radial growth following edge creation showed a similar spatial pattern as height with oak seedlings within 20 m of the edge exhibiting significantly greater growth than those occurring furthest into the intact forest. This study suggests that forest edge can be used to provide environments useful in building reproductive capacity for species like oaks that require advance reproduction.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".