Sugar maple (<i>Acer saccharum</i> Marsh.) establishment in boreal forest: results of a transplantation experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim To evaluate whether seedlings of sugar maple ( Acer saccharum Marsh.) can establish beyond the species northern range limit in adjacent boreal forest. Location The hardwood–boreal forest transition zone on the north‐east shore of Lake Superior, Ontario, Canada. Methods Seed fall of sugar maple was monitored for 5 years in a stand of this species at its northern range limit, and seed from this stand was transplanted to five micro‐habitat types in an adjacent boreal forest. The establishment and survival of sugar maple seedlings there, and in the seed‐source stand, was monitored for the following 7–11 years. Soil‐surface light levels were measured in both forest types. Results Most seed fell in the final year of monitoring, when c. 250 seeds m −2 were recorded. First‐year seedling establishment rates in the maple stand, deriving from this mast seed year, was approximately double that deriving from seed transplanted to the boreal forest sites; this is tentatively attributed to seed predator satiation in the maple stand. However, subsequent seedling survivorship in the boreal forest was greater than that in the maple stand, resulting in comparable seedling densities by the end of 6 years. This difference is tentatively attributed to better illumination in the boreal forest sites, and canopy‐opening disturbances appear to be especially facilitative of seedling survival. Main conclusions There is no fundamental impediment to sugar maple seedlings establishing in boreal forest communities if climate warming occurs and seed is available. If management intervention is needed to accelerate seed availability in a rapidly warming boreal forest, then diffuse seed application to disturbed boreal forest sites during mast years of local boreal tree species is recommended as the most effective way of avoiding seed predation and increasing seedling survival.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".