Early above- and below-ground responses of subboreal conifer seedlings to various levels of deciduous canopy removal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the growth of understory conifers, following partial or complete deciduous canopy removal, in a field study established in two regions in Canada. In central British Columbia, we studied the responses of three species (Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca (Beissn.) Franco, Picea glauca (Moench) Voss × Picea engelmannii Parry ex Engelm., and Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt.), and in northwestern Quebec, we studied one species (Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.). Stem and root diameter and height growth were measured 5 years before and 3 years after harvesting. Both root and stem diameter growth increased sharply following release but seedlings showed greater root growth, suggesting that in the short term, improvement in soil resource capture and transport, and presumably stability, may be more important than an increase in stem diameter and height growth. Response was strongly size dependent, which appears to reflect greater demand for soil resources as well as higher light levels and greater tree vigour before release for taller individuals. Growth ratios could not explain the faster response generally attributed to true fir species or the unusual swift response of spruces. Good prerelease vigour of spruces, presumably favoured by deciduous canopies, could explain their rapid response to release.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".