MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073394111 · doi:10.1139/b04-017

Light, not nitrogen, limits growth of the grass<i>Deschampsia flexuosa</i>in boreal forests

2004· article· en· W2073394111 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joachim Strengbom, Torgny Näsholm, Lars Ericson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnderstoryVaccinium myrtillusCompetition (biology)Biomass (ecology)AgronomyBiologyTaigaBotanyEcologyCanopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increased nitrogen (N) input in boreal forests has previously been shown to induce a shift from Vaccinium myrtillus L. to Deschampsia flexuosa (L.) Trin. as the dominant understory species. We investigated the relative importance of increased light and N for this shift, in a field experiment. We increased light availability, that is, we reduced aboveground competition from V. myrtillus, and increased N by adding 50 kg N·ha –1 . Increased light availability had a positive effect on both the growth rate and final biomass of D. flexuosa. Although N addition increased the uptake of fertilizer N by both species, it had no effect on the growth or biomass of either species. Thus, aboveground competition from V. myrtillus prevented expansion of D. flexuosa, regardless of N treatment. The results suggest that aboveground competition may be more important than belowground competition for structuring understory boreal forest communities. As light availability is important, both the structure and total amount of standing crop will be important for the outcome of species interactions.Key words: aboveground competition, belowground competition, fertilization, natural enemies, nitrogen deposition, vegetation change.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.569
Threshold uncertainty score0.685

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations74
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207