Comparative physiological responses of Rhododendron groenlandicum and regenerating Picea mariana following partial canopy removal in northeastern Quebec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In boreal black spruce ( Picea mariana (Mill.) BSP) dominated stands, careful logging around advance regeneration contributes to protect the shrub layer while increasing light availability. Therefore, it may promote expansion of bog Labrador tea ( Rhododendron groenlandicum (Oeder) Kron & Judd), which can impair black spruce growth by direct competition for nutrients and by alteration of soil biochemical conditions. Such harvesting approaches may not be suited for irregular, uneven-aged black spruce stands in the context of ecosystem-based management. Our objectives were to evaluate the effects of different intensities of partial harvest on critical resource availability and to compare the physiological and morphological responses of black spruce and Rhododendron to different intensities of partial harvest treatments. Two years after harvest, photosynthesis rate of black spruce was unchanged and was lower than that of Rhododendron, which was 63% higher after harvest. Nitrogen and water use efficiency were, respectively, 171% and 42% higher in Rhododendron than in black spruce after logging. Following harvest, black spruce physiology appeared to be regulated by the atmospheric humidity deficit, but for Rhododendron, physiology was regulated by light availability. The high plasticity of Rhododendron leaf traits could be indicative of the future advantage of this species in these stands following canopy removal associated with harvest.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".