Sugar maple seedling carbon assimilation at the northern limit of its range: the importance of seasonal light
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using in situ light curves and understory seasonal light measurements the importance of canopy avoidance was evaluated for a population of sugar maple ( Acer saccharum Marsh.) seedlings living at the boreal ecotone in Lake Superior Provincial Park, Ontario, Canada. At higher latitudes, the time period associated with canopy avoidance is shorter and occurs at cooler temperatures, increasing the risk of frost damage. In 2008, leaf-out began 5 days prior to the last frost of the season. By modeling the potential carbon gain of seedlings, it is clear that the short time period prior to canopy leaf-out still contributes a disproportionate amount of carbon to the overall budget of seedlings. Of the total seasonal carbon gain, 80.6% was assimilated in the initial 15 days following sugar maple seedling leaf-out. Based on our model, by leafing out only 6 days earlier than the average seedling leaf-out date, ∼200% more carbon could be assimilated during the course of the growing season. Vegetation phenology is cued by climatic triggers — as climate changes so too will phenological responses. These mechanisms add to the overall carbon budget of seedlings; recognizing these mechanisms is essential to thoroughly understand the natural history of this species.
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".