MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147978779 · doi:10.1139/x10-210

Regeneration ecology of sugar maple (Acer saccharum): seedling survival in relation to nutrition, site factors, and damage by insects and pathogens

2011· article· en· W2147978779 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Natalie L. Cleavitt, Timothy J. Fahey, John J. Battles

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSeedling growth and survival studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of MichiganU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsSeedlingMapleAceraceaeBiologySugarPlant litterSowingAgronomyEcologyBotanyHorticultureNutrient

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The possible regeneration failure of sugar maple ( Acer saccharum Marsh.) as part of their decline has been not well explored using field studies. We sought to clarify the roles of maternal effects and dynamics of early-season survival in contributing to the previously documented pattern of larger seedlings and higher seedling densities on a Ca-treated watershed (CAL) at Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest. We used a reciprocal seed planting experiment at four sites, two sites per watershed blocked by elevation. Regardless of maternity, sugar maple seedlings planted in CAL had higher survival than seedlings in the reference watershed. However, this advantage was not as clearly linked to the Ca amendment as in our previous work, probably, in part, because Ca availability has decreased over time. Maternal effects on seed chemistry and some seedling traits were detected, but these were not strong determinants of survival. Site was a good predictor of early seedling survival with litter layer depth, pathogen prevalence, and soil chemistry all contributing to the explanatory power of site. The strength of Ca,addition effects on sugar maple regeneration from seed depends on initial soil characteristics, application amounts, and interactions of the amendment with other factors such as leaf litter cycling, weather, and pathogens.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.260
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

Citations59
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicSeedling growth and survival studiesFrench-language works237,207