Hybrid poplar plantations are suitable habitat for reintroduced forest herbs with conservation status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plantations of fast-growing tree species may be of use in conservation by accelerating the restoration of forest habitat on abandoned farmland and increasing connectivity in fragmented landscapes. The objective of this study was to determine if hybrid poplar plantations can be suitable habitats for the reintroduction of native forest plant species and, if so, which abiotic factors predict successful reintroduction. Four species of forest herb species (Trillium grandiflorum, Sanguinaria canadensis, Maianthemum racemosum, Asarum canadense), of which three have legal conservation status, were transplanted into experimental plantations of two hybrid poplar clones and nearby second-growth woodlots at six sites in southern Quebec, Canada. The transplanted individuals were protected from deer browsing with exclusion cages. After two years, the plant responses of all four species were stable or increased over two years in both types of hybrid poplar plantations. Sanguinaria showed a better response in the plantations than in the woodlots, preferring the rich post-agricultural soils of the plantations with low C:N ratios. Asarum and Maianthemum showed no significant difference between stand types, while Trillium grew better in the woodlots than in the plantations. Much of the variability in the response of the latter three species was unexplained by the measured environmental variables. These results suggest that certain forest herb species can be reintroduced as juvenile plants into plantations, knowing that their spontaneous recolonization is often limited by dispersal and/or seedling establishment. Plantations could also contribute to the conservation of biodiversity by providing an environment for the cultivation of forest herb species as an alternative to their destructive harvest from natural populations.
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".