Growth releases of three shade-tolerant species following canopy gap formation in old-growth forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Questions: Do the number, duration and magnitude of growth releases following formation of natural, fine-scale canopy gaps differ among shade-tolerant Thuja plicata, Tsuga heterophylla and Abies amabilis? What is the relative importance of tree-level and gap-level variables in predicting the magnitude and duration of releases? What does this tell us about mechanisms of tree species coexistence in such old-growth forests? Location: Coastal British Columbia, Canada. Methods: We estimated the timing of formation of 20 gaps using dendroecological techniques and extracted increment cores from all three species growing around or within gaps. Using a species- and ecosystem-specific release-detection method, we determined the number of trees experiencing a release following gap formation. We quantified the duration and magnitude of individual releases and estimated the influence of tree-level and gap-level variables on these release attributes. Results: Eighty-seven per cent (304 of 348) of all trees experienced a release following gap formation. T. heterophylla and A. amabilis experienced higher magnitude and longer duration releases than T. plicata. The effect of diameter on the duration of releases varied among species, with T. heterophylla and A. amabilis experiencing decreasing, and T. plicata experiencing increasing, duration of releases with increasing diameter. The effect of growth rate prior to a release on the magnitude of releases varied among trees of different diameters, with the slowest growing and smallest individuals of all species experiencing the most intensive releases. Conclusions: Our results provide detailed information on the number, duration and magnitude of growth releases of the above three species following gap formation. Differences in response to canopy gaps suggest differences in how these species ascend to the canopy strata. T. plicata may be less dependent on gaps to reach the canopy. Differing strategies for ascending to the canopy strata may be important in facilitating coexistence of these three species in old-growth forests of coastal British Columbia.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".