Is early life cycle success a determinant of the abundance of red spruce and balsam fir?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Red spruce ( Picea rubens Sarg.) and balsam fir ( Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.) are sympatric in much of the Acadian Forest, but their relative regeneration success during the changing climates of the Holocene and after harvest in the modern forest has been distinctly different. Early life stage behavior may contribute to these differences. We report that seed germination by red spruce was equally fast and complete in warm and cool temperature regimes, while balsam fir germination was slower and less complete in both, especially the cool regime. Also, seedling shoot growth of red spruce exhibited a highly plastic response to increased light and water by maintaining continuous neoformed growth throughout the growing season, while balsam fir seedlings set bud after very little epicotyl development. Therefore, the root/shoot ratio of balsam fir was about twice that of red spruce, regardless of available light or water. Neoformed shoot growth under conditions of ample moisture and light would give red spruce a competitive advantage, but the relatively high root/shoot ratio of balsam fir seedlings would lower the likelihood that water and (or) mineral nutrients would limit shoot growth. The effects of these and other differences in life stage behavior on species abundance over time are discussed.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".