MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131902270 · doi:10.1139/b2012-045

Seed dynamics of two fire-dependent <i>Geranium</i> species in the boreal forest of southeastern Sweden

2012· article· en· W2131902270 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lotta Risberg, Anders Granström

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSvenska Forskningsrådet Formas
KeywordsHumusBiological dispersalFire regimeSeed dispersalTaigaBiologyThreatened speciesSeedlingGeraniumEcologyAgronomyBotanyHabitatSoil waterPopulationEcosystem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We analyzed critical life-history variables for two rare fire-dependent annual Geranium species in southern Sweden, which are today threatened because of effective fire suppression. At recently burned sites with abundant recruitment, seedlings occurred only where the humus layer had been completely removed by smoldering fire. Emergence depths ranged 1–6 cm in the mineral soil. Soil sampling at four sites revealed that in unburned soil Geranium seeds were located only in the mineral soil. Surprisingly, residual seeds were still present where fire had burned away the humus layer. An experiment showed that both species deposit seeds relatively evenly within a radius of 5–6 m, through ballistic dispersal. Repeated sampling in the field over a 2-year period after seed dispersal at one site indicated a low rate of seed depletion, corroborated by an indoor incubation of seeds. Our results show that successful management of these species depend on deep-burning prescribed fire, which can only result after severe drought. On the other hand, the seed bank is extremely long-lived, as viable seeds were present at a site last burned 200 years ago. This well-protected seed bank will likely buffer against both ill-timed fires and occasional failure in the recruiting seedling 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207