The effect of light availability and basal area on cone production in <i>Abies balsamea</i> and <i>Picea glauca</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mean annual seed production is assumed to be proportional to basal area for canopy trees, but it is not known if subcanopy trees produce fewer seeds than expected (given their size) because of low light availability. Ovulate cone production was examined for balsam fir (Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.) and white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) in 1998 and for balsam fir in 2000 in western Quebec using subcanopy stems, near or far from forest edges, or (at one site) planted white spruce trees in fully open conditions. A very simple light model for transmission through mature trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) crowns and through boles near forest edges was developed to account for the effect of light receipt on cone production. The enhanced light near forest edges (e.g., recent clearcuts) leads to about a doubling of cone production for subcanopy stems. The minimum subcanopy height for cone production far from an edge is about 10 m for balsam fir and 14 m for white spruce, with these minima decreasing near edges. By contrast, the minimum height for white spruce in a plantation (full light) is about 3 m. Accounting for light receipt leads to an increase in the explained variance.Key words: balsam fir, cone production, light model, regressions, subcanopy stems, white spruce.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".