MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138744437 · doi:10.1098/rspb.2014.1779

Non-climatic constraints on upper elevational plant range expansion under climate change

2014· article· en· W2138744437 on OpenAlexaff
Carissa D. Brown, Mark Vellend

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRange (aeronautics)Climate changeEcologyEnvironmental scienceRegeneration (biology)Biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We are limited in our ability to predict climate-change-induced range shifts by our inadequate understanding of how non-climatic factors contribute to determining range limits along putatively climatic gradients. Here, we present a unique combination of observations and experiments demonstrating that seed predation and soil properties strongly limit regeneration beyond the upper elevational range limit of sugar maple, a tree species of major economic importance. Most strikingly, regeneration beyond the range limit occurred almost exclusively when seeds were experimentally protected from predators. Regeneration from seed was depressed on soil from beyond the range edge when this soil was transplanted to sites within the range, with indirect evidence suggesting that fungal pathogens play a role. Non-climatic factors are clearly in need of careful attention when attempting to predict the biotic consequences of climate change. At minimum, we can expect non-climatic factors to create substantial time lags between the creation of more favourable climatic conditions and range expansion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations204
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological SciencesSame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207