MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979505892 · doi:10.2307/3236906

Demography of three dominant sedges under contrasting grazing regimes in the High Arctic

2001· article· en· W1979505892 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Anne Tolvanen, J. Schroderus, Gregory H. R. Henry

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vegetation Science · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTiller (botany)CarexBiologyEcologyGrazingPopulationHabitatBiomass (ecology)CyperaceaeEcological successionJuvenileAgronomyPoaceaeDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Tiller demography of Carex aquatilis ssp. stans, Carex membranacea , and Eriophorum angustifolium ssp. triste was investigated in ungrazed and grazed high arctic vegetation on central Ellesmere Island, Canada. Tiller birth, growth, flowering and death were studied from excavated clonal fragments, and tiller density and biomass were studied from excavated turfs. Five life‐cycle stages were determined: dormant buds, juvenile, mature, flowering and dead tillers. A stage‐based transition matrix model was developed to estimate the long‐term dynamics of the sedge populations and to compare life‐history strategies between ungrazed and grazed populations. Short‐term and retrospective models, based on the growth during the sampling year and during the lifetime of the clonal fragments, respectively, were compared to see how well the short‐term model can describe demography of long‐lived plants. According to the short‐term model, tiller populations were decreasing (λ < 1 except for C. membranacea ), whereas the retrospective model indicated that the tiller populations were increasing. Tiller population growth rates did not differ between ungrazed and grazed habitats. Nevertheless, the similar growth rates may be obtained by balanced differences in the vital rates between plants of the two habitats. The plants in the ungrazed habitat tended to remain in their current life‐cycle stage, whereas plants in the grazed habitat moved quickly to the next stage and died earlier. C. aquatilis ssp. stans appears to gain a competitive advantage over the other species under intensive grazing, as indicated by the higher tiller density and greater below‐ground biomass in grazed vegetation. The greater amount of below‐ground biomass apparently buffers C. aquatilis ssp. stans against grazing better than the other species.

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)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.276

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations22
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vegetation ScienceSame topicClimate change and permafrostFrench-language works237,207