American beech and sugar maple sapling relative abundance and growth are not modified by light availability following partial and total canopy disturbances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies have reported divergent results on the effect of soil fertility and canopy opening on understory density and growth of sugar maple (AS; Acer saccharum Marsh.) and American beech (FG; Fagus grandifolia Ehrh.). The main objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of a gradient of canopy opening and soil fertility on the density and growth of AS and FG saplings in southwestern Quebec, Canada. We investigated 56 stands containing both AS and FG that were subjected to different disturbance history types (DHTs) (UF, unmanaged forest; PC, partial cut; and CC, clearcut) on various soil types. AS and FG absolute and relative sapling density varied greatly among the 56 stands; however, no significant effects of DHT, soil nutrient availability, or their interaction were found. Both species responded positively in terms of radial growth to canopy openings, with FG growth being slightly better than AS growth in PC stands compared with other canopy treatments. Contrary to our hypothesis, AS did not show significantly higher growth than FG following clear-cutting. These results do not support the idea that AS abundance and growth could be promoted by increasing the intensity of the canopy opening during harvest, at least on the generally acidic and base-poor soils that were investigated.
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 | 0.000 | 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".