MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2042440666 · doi:10.1139/x01-207

Potential carry-over of seeds from 11 common shrub and vine competitors of loblolly and shortleaf pines

2002· article· en· W2042440666 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael G. Shelton, Michael D. Cain

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGerminationShrubBotanyHorticultureVine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many of the competitors of the regeneration of loblolly and shortleaf pines (Pinus taeda L. and Pinus echinata Mill., respectively) develop from seed disseminated on the site after reproduction cutting or from the seed bank. To evaluate the potential carry-over of the seeds from 11 shrub and vine competitors of these two important southern pines, we designed packets so that fruits could be deposited on the forest floor and subsequently extracted over a 3-year period. After extraction, repeated cycles of 60 days of germination testing followed by 60 days of stratification were conducted over a maximum of 42 months to determine the potential for seed carry-over and the germination characteristics of the species. Seeds of privet (Ligustrum vulgare L.) showed no viability after the first winter of field storage, while seeds of rattan vine (Berchemia scandens (Hill) K. Koch) and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica Thunb.) had low viability (1–3%) after the third year. In contrast, seeds of smooth sumac (Rhus glabra L.), devils-walkingstick (Aralia spinosa L.), pepper vine (Ampelopsis arborea (L.) Koehne), and blackberry (Rubus argutus Link) were moderate in viability (7–19%) after the third year of field storage, while seeds of beautyberry (Callicarpa americana L.), common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia L.), and summer grape (Vitis aestivalis Michx.) showed a high viability (31–55%). Cumulative germination of seeds of deciduous holly (Ilex decidua Walt.) was greater after 3 years of field storage (8%) than after only 1 year (4%); for the first removal from field storage, no germination occurred until the ninth germination cycle. Results indicate that new seedlings of some species of shrubs and vines rely mostly on seeds dispersed shortly before or after disturbance, while seedlings of other species appear to develop from seeds that have been stored for long periods in the seed bank. Results of this study can be useful in developing ecologically sound strategies for controlling competing vegetation in forest stands of the southeastern United States.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.261
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations19
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies→French-language works237,207→