MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084834455 · doi:10.3390/f3020190

A Comparison of Invasive Acer platanoides and Native A. saccharum First-Year Seedlings: Growth, Biomass Distribution and the Influence of Ecological Factors in a Forest Understory

2012· article· en· W2084834455 on OpenAlexaff
Marie Lapointe, Jacques Brisson

Bibliographic record

VenueForests · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSeedling growth and survival studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnderstorySaccharumBiologyBiomass (ecology)Invasive speciesUndergrowthShade toleranceAceraceaeSecondary forestOld-growth forestGrowing seasonMapleSalicaceaeBotanyEcologyWoody plantCanopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Invasive shade tolerant species can have profound and long-lasting detrimental effects even on previously undisturbed forests. In North American forests, the invasive Acer platanoides is capable of dominating the understory where it could displace the native Acer saccharum. To understand the relative importance of various ecological factors in a forest understory on their establishment, we transplanted A. platanoides and A. saccharum seedlings in an urban sugar maple forest understory and their growth and survival were compared over a growing season. Seedlings did not differ in height, but biomass growth and assimilation rates were twice as high for the invasive species. Ecological variables accounted for only 23–24% of variation in growth. Seedlings of A. platanoides appeared to capture light more efficiently, with over 150% greater foliage biomass and surface area. A. saccharum seedlings were more negatively affected by herbivory. The more robust A. platanoides seedlings presented characteristics that could allow them to better grow and survive in shaded understories than their native congeners.

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)0.001
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.571

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestsSame topicSeedling growth and survival studiesFrench-language works237,207