Determinants of survival over 7 years for a natural cohort of sugar maple seedlings in a northern hardwood forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The regeneration ecology of sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.) has been impacted by acid rain leaching of base cations from the soils throughout much of its range. We tracked the survival and causes of death for a natural cohort of sugar maple seedlings across 22 sites in the Hubbard Brook Valley in New Hampshire, USA, where soil acidification has been documented. Survival over 7 years averaged 3.4%; however, significant differences in survival were observed among sites, which were classified into three main groups based on the shape of their survival curves. These site groups differed in position on the landscape, seedling nutrition and leaf size, and the prevalence of damage agents, but not in soil Ca. First-season mortality was high (71%), and the main damage agents were fungal infection (Rhizoctonia spp.) and caterpillar herbivory (Geometridae). Other principal causes of mortality in order of importance were winter injury, mechanical damage, and rodent (Myodes gapperi Vigors, 1830) tunneling, and all damage agents varied significantly in severity between years. This study highlights the importance of landscape-level variation in biotic factors for predicting sugar maple regeneration success. Predictions of sugar maple regeneration will require a better understanding of controls on initial seedling growth and the suite of biotic agents that damages seedlings.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".