MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155473971 · doi:10.3732/ajb.89.3.500

Impact of tree leaf phenology on growth rates and reproduction in the spring flowering species <i>Trillium erectum</i> (Liliaceae)

2002· article· en· W2155473971 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Marie‐Claude Routhier, Line Lapointe

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Botany · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyPhenologyCanopyBotanyReproductionTree canopyLiliaceaeSpring (device)Ecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated the impact of overstory tree leaf phenology on growth rates, carbon allocation pattern, and fruit characteristics in the spring flowering species, Trillium erectum (Liliaceae). Air temperature, overstory canopy closure, and T. erectum phenology were monitored at three locations following a latitudinal gradient in Québec, Canada. Northern sugar maple trees leaf out at cooler temperatures than more southern populations, while Trillium development was initiated at the same soil temperature irrespective of the latitude. Therefore, in northern areas, the time between initiation of T. erectum leaf expansion and canopy closure was shorter than in southern areas, which left less time for northern plants to accumulate reserves before canopy closure. Differences in growth patterns were noted between T. erectum populations. From a south-north gradient, investment to reproduction, total plant biomass, and annual growth rate decreased, while specific leaf area and stem height increased, indicating shade acclimation. The length of the high light period in early spring seems to be a determinant for spring flowering plants' growth and reproduction and may explain the northern distribution limit of some of these species.

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)0.000
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 score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations65
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of BotanySame topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207