Recruitment of <i>Picea mariana</i>, <i>Pinus banksiana</i>, and <i>Populus tremuloides</i> across a burn severity gradient following wildfire in the southern boreal forest of Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most studies of postfire tree recruitment have occurred in severely burned portions, despite the fact that partial burning is common. In this study we examined regeneration following a 1997 fire in the boreal forest of Quebec. A model of postfire recruitment was elaborated using parameters such as the proportion of trees killed (severity), the proportions of postfire seedbed types and their associated juvenile survivorship, the available seed supply, the available bud supply (for Populus tremuloides Michx.), and the granivory rate. All three species had peak recruitment in the first or second summer, and the recruitment episode was essentially finished after the third year. Mineral soil and surviving Sphagnum were the best seedbeds for both conifer species. Seedbed frequency was essentially independent of crown fire severity except for surviving Sphagnum, which was concentrated primarily where severity was light. Conifer fecundity was much lower in the lightly burned stands, a result we attribute to a higher granivory rate. The fecundity (seedlings/basal area for the conifers or suckers/basal area for Populus) in the severe sites was typical of the few other North American studies of postfire recruitment, where the published data permit us to make the comparison.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".