Comparing indices of understory light availability between hemlock and hardwood forest patches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated whether two indices of light availability resolved differences among microsites within deeply shaded understories (<12% of above-canopy photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD)) and also whether marked differences in forest canopy structure affected how the two indices related to direct measures of incident photosynthetically active radiation (PAR). Incident PAR was measured with gallium–arsenide–phosphide photodiodes at numerous points in two adjacent forest patches in Michigan, USA: one dominated by the evergreen conifer eastern hemlock ( Tsuga canadensis (L.) Carrière), and the other by the deciduous hardwood sugar maple ( Acer saccharum Marsh.). The two indices tested were canopy openness, measured with the LI-COR LAI-2000 plant canopy analyzer, and the percentage of above-canopy PPFD measured in the understory during overcast conditions (%PPFD). Canopy openness and %PPFD did not effectively predict the long-term mean of daily PPFD. However, both indices reliably predicted the long-term mean of daily median PPFD, an alternative standard of directly measured incident PAR that reduces the relative contribution of sunflecks. The relationships of both indices with mean daily median PPFD differed between hemlock and hardwood patches. Hence, the effect of canopy structure should be considered when using these indices to draw conclusions about differences in light availability between forest patches, particularly when narrow ranges of light availability in deep shade are important.
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".