Effects of Topographic and Soil Factors on Woody Species Assembly in a Chinese Subtropical Evergreen Broadleaved Forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evergreen broadleaved forests in subtropical China contain a complicated structure of diverse species. The impact of topographic and soil factors on the assembly of woody species in the forest has been poorly understood. We used Ripley’s K(t) function to analyze the spatial patterns and associations of dominant species and residual analysis (RDA) to quantify the contribution of topography and soil to species assembly. The 1 ha plot investigated had 4797 stems with a diameter at breast height (dbh) larger than 1 cm that belong to 73 species, 55 genera, and 38 families. All stems of the entire forest and four late successional species exhibited a reversed J shape for dbh distribution, while two early successional species showed a unimodal shape. Aggregation was the major spatial pattern for entire forests and dominant species across vertical layers. Spatial associations between inter- and intra-species were mostly independent. Topographic and soil factors explained 28.1% of species assembly. The forest was close to late succession and showed the characteristics of diverse woody species, high regeneration capacity, and aggregated spatial patterns. Topographic and soil factors affected species assembly, but together they could only explain a small part of total variance.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".