MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968859259 · doi:10.1139/x00-089

Effects of suppression and release on sapling growth for 11 tree species of northern, interior British Columbia

2000· article· en· W1968859259 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Elaine F. Wright, Charles D. Canham, K Dave Coates

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanopyBiologyShade toleranceEcologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Saplings of canopy tree species frequently undergo alternating periods of suppression and release before reaching canopy size. In this study, we document the effects of periods of suppression and release on current responses to variation in light by saplings of the 11 major tree species of northwestern, interior British Columbia. We were specifically interested in the degree to which increasing length of suppression had long-term effects on subsequent response to release in gaps or following partial cutting, and the degree to which the effects of suppression were ameliorated with time following release. At least some saplings of all 11 species had undergone alternating periods of suppression and release. The most shade-tolerant species generally did not show either a decline in growth over time during suppression or a gradual increase in growth at a given light level over time during release. The least shade-tolerant species exhibited significant declines in growth rate during suppression; however, in all of the species except trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.), the effects of suppression disappeared over time during release. Failure to account for the effects of past suppression and release leads to significant overestimates of the initial responses of shade-intolerant species to release. Our results suggest that competitive balances between species shift substantially over time as a result of growth history and that these shifts have significant effects on successional patterns.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.957

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.249
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations116
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207