Contrasting modes of survival by jack and pitch pine at a common range limit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Freezing tolerance, reproductive development, and seed germination of jack pine (Pinus banksiana Lamb.) and pitch pine (Pinus rigida Mill.) were compared in a small sympatric population in Acadia National Park in Maine, at the southern range limit of the former and the northern limit of the latter. Freezing tolerances of vegetative shoots and roots were similar for both species. Both species flower prolifically, and there was no evidence of differences in either pollen viability, cone survival, or proportion of viable seed (6570% of the total). Regeneration success (established seedlings ranging from 1 to 13 years old) was similar overall for both species, but success by species varied greatly in some years. Jack pine regeneration was significantly associated with thinner soils, while pitch pine regeneration was associated with thicker soils in hollows. Jack pine seed germinated significantly faster than pitch pine seed, especially when daynight temperature was reduced. Pitch pine seedlings always exhibited a significantly higher shoot/root ratio than those of jack pine. The most northerly provenances of jack pine germinated significantly faster than those from the most southerly provenances. Jack pine also germinated at a significantly higher percentage than pitch pine in exposed granite sand. Thus relatively cool, dry conditions may favor establishment of jack pine seedlings, while pitch pine establishment may be favored in warmer, wetter conditions.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".