MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036070590 · doi:10.1139/x09-007

Foliar morphology and chemistry of upland oaks, red maple, and sassafras seedlings in response to single and repeated prescribed fires

2009· article· en· W2036070590 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Heather D. Alexander, Mary A. Arthur

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSeedling growth and survival studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Forest ServiceJoint Fire Science Program
KeywordsSeedlingBiologyUnderstoryBotanyAceraceaeCanopyHorticultureAgronomyMaple

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Managers increasingly use prescribed fire in oak forests to decrease fire-sensitive species, increase understory light, and improve oak ( Quercus spp.) regeneration. To better understand woody seedling response to burning, single and repeated (3×) prescribed fires were implemented over 6 years (2002–2007) in eastern Kentucky, and leaf traits of red ( Erythrobalanus spp.) and white oaks ( Leucobalanus spp.) were compared with competitors red maple ( Acer rubrum L.) and sassafras ( Sassafras albidum (Nutt.) Nees). Burned seedlings had higher total leaf area (TLA) because of two to three times higher TLA of sassafras. Leaf mass per area (LMA) and leaf N content per area (N area ) increased postfire but were independent of seedling identity. Canopy openness during 2006, which was lower on unburned sites (4%–8%) compared with those burned 1× (4%–16%) and 3× (7%–33%), was positively correlated with sassafras TLA, oak and sassafras N area , and LMA of all seedling groups the subsequent year. In 2007, TLA, LMA, and N area were positively correlated with basal diameter of all groups but most significantly for sassafras and red maple. These findings indicate that low-intensity, early growing season prescribed fire can alter seedling leaf characteristics, but not in a manner that enhances oak seedling leaf traits relative to their competitors red maple and sassafras.

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)0.001
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 score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations11
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicSeedling growth and survival studiesFrench-language works237,207