VARIATION IN RESPONSES OF LATE-SERAL HERBS TO DISTURBANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STRESS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clonal herbs that attain maximum development in late-seral forest are often assumed to have similar responses to disturbance and to be functionally equivalent. However, little is known about the demographic or physiological responses of these plants to disturbance or to the altered conditions of the post-disturbance environment. Following harvest of a mature coniferous forest, we compared abundance, demographic changes, and physiological acclimation of three clonal herbs (Asarum caudatum, Clintonia uniflora, and Pyrola picta) that differ in belowground morphology and leaf longevity. We measured ramet density, leaf area, and demographic variables (survival, clonal growth, flowering, and seedling establishment) before and for two years after harvest, and in adjacent undisturbed forest. Acclimation to increased solar radiation was assessed two years after harvest by measuring leaf mass per unit area (LMA) and chlorophyll a:b ratios of leaves produced in the current year. Although initial declines in abundance were similar, demographic responses indicate that patterns of recovery varied greatly among species. Two years after logging, ramet survival and clonal growth (production of new ramets) of Clintonia were greater in the harvest area than in the forest. Asarum had lower survival in the harvest area, but greater clonal growth, and Pyrola showed no difference in either survival or growth between environments. Only Asarum produced seedlings, although their survival was low in the harvest area. All species had higher LMA in the harvest area, but only Clintonia (with annual leaves) had a higher chlorophyll a:b ratio, suggesting the greatest potential for acclimation to increased light. Our results demonstrate that forest herbs with greater rhizome plasticity and shorter leaf duration have greater potential to acclimate after disturbance than those with rigid architectures and persistent leaves. Thus, species with comparable successional roles can vary substantially in their demographic and physiological responses to disturbance, with potential consequences for long-term recovery.
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 | 0.001 | 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".