MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2304874123 · doi:10.5558/tfc2016-021

Germination and establishment of natural red spruce (<i>Picea rubens</i>) seedlings in silvicultural gaps of different sizes

2016· article· en· W2304874123 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Daniel Dumais, Marcel Prévost

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsMinistère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts
FundersMinistère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs
KeywordsGerminationSeedlingMossSowingUnderstoryHumusPicea abiesBiologyNatural regenerationBotanySeedingSilvicultureEnvironmental scienceHorticultureAgronomyAgroforestryEcologyCanopySoil water

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Red spruce (Picea rubens Sarg.) is difficult to regenerate from natural seeding following silvicultural treatment. In order to study its germination and establishment, we monitored the dynamics of new seedlings over 10 years in silvicultural gaps of different sizes (small: < 100 m2, medium: 100–300 m2, large: > 700 m2). Seedling density was higher in small gaps but survival rate did not exceed 40%, leaving few live seedlings after 10 years (< 200 ha-1). Mounds were the best microtopography for seedlings. Our results confirm the important role of decaying wood and moss for understory germination and establishment. Decaying wood was important for the establishment in large gaps while humus was more favourable in medium gaps. In small gaps, germinants and established seedlings were found as much on moss as humus and decaying wood. However, low observed densities suggest that planting in small or medium gaps should be explored for accelerating species renewal, especially if advance regeneration is deficient.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.199
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations20
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207