Patterns of Cross-Continental Variation in Tree Seed Mass in the Canadian Boreal Forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seed mass is an adaptive trait affecting species distribution, population dynamics and community structure. In widely distributed species, variation in seed mass may reflect both genetic adaptation to local environments and adaptive phenotypic plasticity. Acknowledging the difficulty in separating these two aspects, we examined the causal relationships determining seed mass variation to better understand adaptability and/or plasticity of selected tree species to spatial/climatic variation. A total of 504, 481 and 454 seed collections of black spruce (Picea mariana (Mill.) B.S.P.), white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) and jack pine (Pinus banksiana Lamb) across the Canadian Boreal Forest, respectively, were selected. Correlation analyses were used to determine how seed mass vary with latitude, longitude, and altitude. Structural Equation Modeling was used to examine how geographic and climatic variables influence seed mass. Climatic factors explained a large portion of the variation in seed mass (34, 14 and 29%, for black spruce, white spruce and jack pine, respectively), indicating species-specific adaptation to long term climate conditions. Higher annual mean temperature and winter precipitation caused greater seed mass in black spruce, but annual precipitation was the controlling factor for white spruce. The combination of factors such as growing season temperature and evapotranspiration, temperature seasonality and annual precipitation together determined seed mass of jack pine. Overall, sites with higher winter temperatures were correlated with larger seeds. Thus, long-term climatic conditions, at least in part, determined spatial variation in seed mass. Black spruce and Jack pine, species with relatively more specific habitat requirements and less plasticity, had more variation in seed mass explained by climate than did the more plastic species white spruce. As traits such as seed mass are related to seedling growth and survival, they potentially influence forest species composition in a changing climate and should be included in future modeling of vegetation shifts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".