Reproductive ecology and allometry of red pine (<i>Pinus resinosa</i>) at the northwestern limit of its distribution range in Manitoba, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Red pine (Pinus resinosa Ait.) has been described as a poor seed producer at its distribution range limit; however, few studies have verified this claim or have examined the factors influencing the reproduction of the species. In 2000, data were collected from 60 trees growing in Manitoba at the extreme northwest limit of the natural distribution range for this species. Cones per tree were counted and samples weighed and measured. Likewise, seeds per cone were counted, measured, weighed, and tested for germination. Correlation and regression analyses compared measured characteristics among cones, among individual trees, and among portions of tree crowns (north, west, south, and east portions). Cone abundance among individual trees was significantly and positively correlated with stem diameter and with basal area increment from 1 to 4 years preceding cone maturation. Cone size and fresh mass and seed abundance, mass, and germination were not significantly correlated with individual trees or crown portions; however, seed number per cone and seed size were found to be significantly and positively correlated with cone size. Germination success in red pine increased with seed mass to a certain threshold value, beyond which more than 80% of the seeds germinated no matter what their mass. Our data for 2000 and field observations for 1999 and 2001 showed that red pine at its northwest limit of distribution range produced numerous cones and viable seeds.Key words: red pine, Pinus resinosa, distribution limit, seeds, germination, cones.
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) | 0.001 | 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".