MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081382611 · doi:10.1139/x05-017

The benefits of seed banking for red maple (<i>Acer rubrum</i>): maximizing seedling recruitment

2005· article· en· W2081382611 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Janneke Hille Ris Lambers, James S. Clark

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany and Plant Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSeedlingBiologyAceraceaeGerminationDormancyDeciduousRecalcitrant seedPopulationMapleSeed dormancyTemperate climateBotanyHorticultureAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seed banking is assumed to be unimportant for temperate trees, because their seeds are short-lived in soils. However, even short-term seed banking could increase recruitment and affect population dynamics of seed-banking trees. To investigate this possibility, we examined early life-history stages of red maple (Acer rubrum L.), an abundant seed-banking tree in eastern forests. We found that seed banking benefits red maple by increasing germination when seedling survival is likely. Most red maple seeds germinate soon after spring dispersal, when seedling survival is high, or postpone germination to the following growing season, once seedling survival becomes less likely late in the summer. This occurs because seed dormancy increases during the growing season, matching a concurrent decrease in seedling survival. Our results and those of other studies suggest seed dormancy is increased by the same environmental factors (low light and low moisture) that also decrease seedling survival. We speculate that early life-history traits, including seed banking, may have contributed to this species' increased abundance in eastern deciduous forests in the last century.

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)0.003
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 score0.469
Threshold uncertainty score0.863

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.166 · 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

Citations20
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicBotany and Plant Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207