Clonal expansion in the deciduous understory shrub, devil's club (<i>Oplopanax horridus</i>; Araliaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To examine clonal growth and the ability of devil's club (Oplopanax horridus (Sm.) Torr. & A. Gray ex Miq.) to persist throughout stages of forest succession, we sampled populations in three classes of stand development: clearcuts (110 years old), young stands (1150 years old), and maturing stands (51200+ years old). We completely excavated and mapped all clonal fragments (systems of ramets connected by decumbent stems) in a plot at each site and determined ramet and clonal fragment age using annual growth rings on stem cross sections. Clonal fragment density and size, ramet density and age, decumbent stem length, annual stem elongation, annual ramet recruitment, lateral meristem formation, and the number of persistent dead ramets were significantly (P < 0.05) related to stand development class. Clonal fragments in clearcut stands were large, predating the year of stand establishment, with many dead, old ramets, but many young stems. Ramet recruitment and lateral meristem formation were highest in clearcut stands, which contributed to replacement of older ramets lost to the disturbance. Clonal fragments in young stands were few and small, consisting of a few ramets and short decumbent stems. In maturing stands, clonal fragments were numerous but consisted of few ramets with extensive decumbent stem connections. No devil's club seedlings were observed in any of the stands sampled. Devil's club populations are maintained by prolific basal stem sprouting following disturbance and continual layering and clonal fragmentation throughout stand development.Key words: age structure, clonal architecture, clonal shrubs, demography, layering, population dynamics.
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 | 0.001 | 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".