Tree spatial pattern within the forest–tundra ecotone: a comparison of sites across CanadaThis article is a contribution to the series Tree recruitment, growth, and distribution at the circumpolar forest–tundra transition.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although many studies have focused on factors influencing treeline advance with climate change, less consideration has been given to potential changes in tree spatial pattern across the forest–tundra ecotone. We investigated trends in spatial pattern across the forest–tundra ecotone and geographical variation in the Yukon, Manitoba, and Labrador, Canada. Tree cover was measured in contiguous quadrats along transects up to 100 m long located in Forest, Ecotone, and Tundra sections across the forest–tundra transition. Spatial patterns were analyzed using new local variance to estimate patch size and wavelet analysis to determine the scale and amount of aggregation. Compared with the Forest, tree cover in the Ecotone was less aggregated at most sites, with fewer smaller patches of trees. We found evidence that shorter trees may be clumped at some sites, perhaps due to shelter from the wind, and we found little support for regular spacing that would indicate competition. With climate change, trees in the Ecotone will likely become more aggregated as patches enlarge and new patches establish. However, results were site-specific, varying with aspect and the presence of krummholz (stunted trees); therefore, strategies for adaptation of communities to climate change in Canada’s subarctic forest would need to reflect these differences.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".