Controls on conifer regeneration in managed riparian forests: effects of seed source, substrate, and vegetation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Red alder (Alnus rubra Bong.) commonly dominates the overstory in managed riparian forests of the Pacific Northwest. Although it is assumed that competition with a dense shrub layer inhibits succession from hardwoods to shade-tolerant conifers within these forests, this assumption has not been explicitly tested. We hypothesized that seed availability rather than competitive interactions largely shape patterns of conifer regeneration in managed riparian forests. At nine locations in western Washington, we established paired transects in riparian sites adjacent to abundant versus few or no sources of seed to examine the importance for conifer regeneration of dispersal limitation, rooting substrate, and vegetation cover. Frequency and density of regeneration were significantly greater in transects within 100 m of remnant forest patches than in paired sites at greater distances (mean frequencies of 59 vs. 18% and densities of 0.23 vs. 0.16 trees/m2, respectively). Where seed sources were present, regeneration was positively associated with coarse woody debris and negatively associated with fine litter. Regeneration was most abundant in plots with <10% herb or shrub cover; however, for most species, recruitment occurred across the full range of understory plant cover. We detected no relationship between regeneration density and overstory conifer or hardwood cover. Our results suggest that, in managed forests, conifer regeneration is largely limited by seed availability and only secondarily by competitive interactions or substrate conditions. In managed landscapes, conventional strategies of vegetation control are not likely to be as effective in increasing conifer regeneration in riparian forests as managing for seed sources through green-tree retention.
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) | 0.001 | 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".