MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Differing influences of natural and artificial disturbances on riparian cottonwoods from prairie to mountain ecoregions in Alberta, Canada

2004· article· en· W1982177713 on OpenAlexaffabout
Glenda M. Samuelson, Stewart B. Rood

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biogeography · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of LethbridgeUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcoregionRiparian zoneTransectEcologyGeographyBelt transectDeciduousEnvironmental scienceForestryBiologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aim Ecoregions represent biophysical zones where environmental factors enable the development of particular plant communities. Ecoregions are generally large but abrupt transitions occur in areas with rapid physical change. A particularly abrupt transitional sequence occurs in the Rocky Mountain region of south‐western Alberta where fescue prairie, aspen parkland and mountain ecoregions occur within 15 km. To investigate plant adaptation across ecoregions, our study investigated the influences of a natural disturbance (flooding) and an artificial disturbance (cattle grazing) on reproductive and population processes of black cottonwood ( Populus balsamifera subsp. trichocarpa , Torr. & Gray), the dominant riparian tree. Location We studied cottonwoods throughout their elevational range along two free‐flowing, first‐order streams, Yarrow and Drywood creeks. Cottonwood was the only prominent tree in the prairie ecoregion, the dominant riparian tree in the parkland and extended upward through the montane ecoregion where it was a pioneer species for the mixed coniferous–deciduous woodland. Cottonwoods did not occur in the higher elevation sub‐alpine ecoregion. Methods Thirty‐six cross‐sectional sampling transects were located across the three ecoregions with cottonwoods, and in ungrazed and grazed areas of each ecoregion. Rectangular 100 m 2 tree and 2 m 2 seedling quadrats were positioned along the transects, and substrate and vegetation were assessed. Historic hydrological data were analysed relative to flood recurrences and seasonal flow patterns. Results Overall, the cottonwoods displayed a sawtooth shaped ‘punctuated progressive age structure’ with many young trees, progressively fewer older trees, and about four pulses of increased recruitment over the past century. This was considered to provide a healthy cottonwood population and recruitment pulses were apparently associated with flood events with appropriate peak timing and magnitude and a gradual post‐flood stage recession. However, analyses of tree, sapling and seedling data indicated that flood‐associated seedling recruitment was less important and clonal processes were more important for cottonwood recruitment in the montane ecoregion, the highest ecoregion with cottonwoods. The correlation between flood events and cottonwood recruitment was strongest in the mid‐elevation parkland ecoregion suggesting greater reliance on flood‐associated seedling recruitment. There was little correlation with flooding and limited recruitment in the fescue prairie ecoregion in recent decades and the disturbed age structure probably results from cattle impacts that have prevented recruitment and produced a decrepit cottonwood forest population. Main conclusions These analyses suggested that a healthy cottonwood population displayed a sawtooth shaped ‘punctuated progressive age structure’ and that cottonwood reproduction processes varied across ecoregions with increased clonality in the highest montane ecoregion. Cattle grazing impacts on reproduction were most severe in the lowest prairie ecoregion that is treeless except for the riparian zone. We conclude that appropriate strategies of instream flow regulation, land‐use policies and practices, and conservation and restoration efforts should be refined according to ecoregion to recognize the differences in cottonwood reproductive and population ecology.

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 score0.443
Threshold uncertainty score0.557

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations52
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of BiogeographySame topicHydrology and Sediment Transport ProcessesFrench-language works237,207