Influence of overstory density on ecophysiology of red oak (Quercus rubra) and sugar maple (Acer saccharum) seedlings in central Ontario shelterwoods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A field experiment was established in a second-growth hardwood forest dominated by red oak (Quercus rubra L.) to examine the effects of shelterwood overstory density on leaf gas exchange and seedling water status of planted red oak, naturally regenerated red oak and sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.) seedlings during the first growing season following harvest. Canopy cover of uncut control stands and moderate and light shelterwoods averaged 97, 80 and 49%, respectively. Understory light and vapor pressure deficit (VPD) strongly influenced gas exchange responses to overstory reduction. Increased irradiance beneath the shelterwoods significantly increased net photosynthesis (P(n)) and leaf conductance to water vapor (G(wv)) of red oak and maple seedlings; however, P(n) and G(wv) of planted and naturally regenerated red oak seedlings were two to three times higher than those of sugar maple seedlings in both partial harvest treatments, due in large part to decreased stomatal limitation of gas exchange in red oak as a result of increased VPD in the shelterwoods. In both species, seedling water status was higher in the partial harvest treatments, as reflected by the higher predawn leaf water potential and seedling water-use efficiency in seedlings in shelterwoods than in uncut stands. Within a treatment, planted and natural red oak seedlings exhibited similar leaf gas exchange rates and water status, indicating little adverse physiological effect of transplanting. We conclude that the use of shelterwoods favors photosynthetic potential of red oak over sugar maple, and should improve red oak regeneration in Ontario.
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) | 0.001 | 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".