MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2149235870 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2015-0321

Multiple developmental pathways for range-margin <i>Pinus banksiana</i> forests

2015· article· en· W2149235870 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kyle G Gill, Anthony W. D’Amato, Shawn Fraver

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of MinnesotaMinnesota Department of Natural Resources
KeywordsRange (aeronautics)Jack pineAdaptabilityEcological successionEcologyPopulationBiologyGeographyPinus <genus>LimitingDendrochronologyForest managementBasal areaDemographyBotanyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Empirical knowledge of forest structure and development in early successional and range-margin populations is often lacking, limiting our ability to effectively model and manage these forests. Such is the case for jack pine (Pinus banksiana Lamb.) in central Minnesota, USA, where it reaches its southwestern range limit. Our objective was to quantify this population’s historical range of variability of structural conditions and developmental pathways. We collected structural, spatial, and dendrochronological data on 0.25 ha plots from 10 jack pine dominated sites that initiated and developed outside of active management. Our results revealed a broad range of structural characteristics and developmental pathways, including rapid and protracted recruitment windows (5–50 years), with subsequent even- and uneven-aged structures, and random and clumped stem spatial arrangements. As such, these mature, early successional forests often displayed a degree of complexity more typically associated with old-growth forests. Our findings suggest that this population, like other southern range-margin populations with mostly nonserotinous cones, historically followed a variety of stand development pathways and did not solely follow the rapid establishment, even-aged pathway often attributed to this forest type. We suggest that even- and uneven-aged silvicultural systems should be used to reflect this historical range of developmental pathways and to increase resilience and adaptability.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies→French-language works237,207→