MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1977817963 · doi:10.1139/x06-196

Relationships between microsite type and the growth and nutrition of young black spruce on post-disturbed lowland black spruce sites in eastern Canada

2007· article· en· W1977817963 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Martin Lavoie, David Paré, Yves Bergeron

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesUniversité du Québec à Montréal
KeywordsBlack spruceMicrositeSphagnumBotanySowingEnvironmental scienceBiologyHorticulturePeatEcologyTaigaSeedling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The surface of the soil in recently harvested or burned lowland black spruce (Picea mariana (Mill.) BSP) sites is composed of a fine mosaic of different bryophytes (mostly Sphagnum spp. and feathermosses), disturbed organic material originating mostly from mosses at different stages of decay, and exposed mineral soil. Growth substrates were compared in lowland black spruce stands regenerating after either careful logging or wildfire. The 3-year annual increment for black spruce seedlings was greatest with substrates of feathermosses, mainly Pleurozium schreberi (Brid.) Mitt., fibric material of P. schreberi origin, and a mixture of fibric P. schreberi and humic materials; it was least with fibric Sphagnum spp., mineral soil, and decaying wood substrates. The most favourable substrates for growth were characterized by better black spruce N and P foliar status. Our results also suggest that categories of growth substrates in the rooting zone reflect nutritional quality better than categories of growth substrates on the soil surface. To maintain or increase black spruce growth following careful logging of sites prone to paludification, we recommend fill-planting of seedlings in substrates originating from P. schreberi; management techniques that favour P. schreberi over Sphagnum mosses should also be developed.

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 score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations39
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology→French-language works237,207→