MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978851652 · doi:10.1890/03-0656

THE INTERACTION BETWEEN MASTING AND FIRE IS KEY TO WHITE SPRUCE REGENERATION

2005· article· en· W1978851652 on OpenAlexafffund
Vernon S. Peters, S. Ellen Macdonald, Mark R. T. Dale

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta-Pacific Forest Industries
KeywordsRegeneration (biology)EcologyKey (lock)White (mutation)GeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used the mast-seeding tree Picea glauca (white spruce) to examine wheth- er the timing of mast years relative to fire had a lasting effect on the density and timing of regeneration. We studied 17 fires that occurred in mast years and in years with low cone production between 1941 and 1994. Trees were carefully aged by crossdating procedures. Over the 59-yr period studied, there was significantly more regeneration after fires that occurred in mast years than after fires that occurred in years of low cone production. Spruce density was significantly lower after fires that occurred 1-3 years before a mast year than after fires during mast years. The cohort of trees that regenerated in the first mast year after a fire was critical to white spruce regeneration for fires that occurred 0-1 year before a mast year, but mast years occurring three or more years after a fire contributed few recruits. Our results suggest that masting is a key process that interacts with fire to shape stand composition in boreal mixedwoods. For species like white spruce, for which establishment is linked to disturbance, masting may have a contingent, historical effect on succession and landscape structure.

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 score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.706

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)0.0010.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations127
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcologySame topicAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207