MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1842286682 · doi:10.1139/b09-091

Burning history, time of burning, and year effects on plant community structure and heterogeneity in Fescue Prairie

2010· article· en· W1842286682 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
D. V. Gross, J. T. Romo

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpatial heterogeneityForbBiologySpecies richnessPerennial plantPlant communityEcologyGrowing seasonHerbaceous plantGraminoidWoody plantGrassland

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Structure, as well as spatial and temporal heterogeneity in plant species composition were studied in a Festuca hallii (Vasey) Piper – dominated Prairie in Canada for 6 years following burning before, during, or after the growing season on sites burned 1× or 3×. Structure, spatial heterogeneity, and temporal heterogeneity were never (P > 0.05) influenced by the time of burning. Diversity and richness of graminoids, perennial forbs, and shrubs fluctuated among years after burning, but were unaffected by burning history. Excepting shrubs, canopy cover of plant functional groups positively correlated with precipitation. After a single burn, spatial heterogeneity in species composition increased with years after burning, indicating plant communities were becoming patchier, whereas those burned 3× did not change predictably through time. Spatial heterogeneity in species composition between consecutive years was positively correlated, but temporal heterogeneity in species composition did not correlate with spatial heterogeneity. Burning history and precipitation appear important in controlling the plant community structure and spatial heterogeneity in species composition in Fescue Prairie.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.591
Threshold uncertainty score0.441

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.191 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207