MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965608481 · doi:10.1093/treephys/22.14.993

Leaf area dynamics of a boreal black spruce fire chronosequence

2002· article· en· W1965608481 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ben Bond‐Lamberty, Chuan Kuan Wang, Stith T. Gower, J. Norman

Bibliographic record

VenueTree Physiology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Environmental BiologyNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsChronosequenceBlack spruceUnderstoryBorealTaigaLeaf area indexCanopyBasal areaSilvicultureEnvironmental scienceSpecific leaf areaForestrySoil waterBotanyBiologyEcologyGeographyAgroforestrySoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Specific leaf area (SLA) and leaf area index (LAI) were estimated using site-specific allometric equations for a boreal black spruce (Picea mariana (Mill.) BSP) fire chronosequence in northern Manitoba, Canada. Stands ranged from 3 to 131 years in age and had soils that were categorized as well or poorly drained. The goals of the study were to: (i) measure SLA for the dominant tree and understory species of boreal black spruce-dominated stands, and examine the effect of various biophysical conditions on SLA; and (ii) examine leaf area dynamics of both understory and overstory for well- and poorly drained stands in the chronosequence. Overall, average SLA values for black spruce (n = 215), jack pine (Pinus banksiana Lamb., n = 72) and trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx., n = 27) were 5.82 +/- 1.91, 5.76 +/- 1.91 and 17.42 +/- 2.21 m2 x kg-1, respectively. Foliage age, stand age, vertical position in the canopy and soil drainage had significant effects on SLA. Black spruce dominated overstory LAI in the older stands. Well-drained stands had significantly higher overstory LAI (P < 0.001), but lower understory LAI (P = 0.022), than poorly drained stands. Overstory LAI was negligible in the recent (3-12 years old) burn sites and highest in the 70-year-old burn site (6.8 and 3.0 in the well- and poorly drained stands, respectively), declining significantly (by 30-50%) from this peak in the oldest stands. Understory leaf area represented a significant portion (> 40%) of total leaf area in all stands except the oldest.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.314
Threshold uncertainty score0.624

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations111
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTree PhysiologySame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207