Growth and crown morphological responses of boreal conifer seedlings and saplings with contrasting shade tolerance to a gradient of light and height
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of gradients in light levels and tree height on growth and crown attributes of six conifer species were studied in eastern and western Canada. Three conifers were studied in British Columbia (Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt., Picea glauca (Moench) Voss × Picea engelmannii Parry ex Engelm., and Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. var. latifolia Engelm.), and three in Quebec (Abies balsamea (L.) Mill., Picea glauca, and Pinus banksiana Lamb.). For several growth and morphological parameters, conifers reacted strongly to both an increase in light and tree height. Significant or nearly significant interactions between light classes and height were found for height and diameter growth of most species as well as for many crown attributes for both Abies and Picea. These interactions usually indicated that growth or morphological changes occurred with increasing height from a certain light level. Within a single genus, both eastern and western tree species showed the same overall acclimation to light and height. As generally reported, Pinus species showed less variation in growth and morphological responses to light than Abies and Picea species.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".