MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2536803116 · doi:10.1002/ecm.1237

Climate and competition affect growth and survival of transplanted sugar maple seedlings along a 1700‐km gradient

2016· article· en· W2536803116 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rachel C. Putnam, Peter B. Reich

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Monographs · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEnvironmental Protection AgencyUniversity of Minnesota
KeywordsAbiotic componentCompetition (biology)UnderstoryCanopyBiologyBiotic componentEcologyRange (aeronautics)Intraspecific competitionMaplePopulationDensity dependenceDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Plant species distributions, broadly shaped by climate, may also be constrained by other species. The degree to which biotic factors affect range limits is unclear, however, and few experimental studies have investigated both biotic and abiotic factors across and beyond a species’ range. We examined seedling survival and net growth for three years in contrasting canopy type (closed canopy vs. gap) and neighbor density (clipped vs. unclipped) environments for northern, central, and southern populations of sugar maple ( Acer saccharum ) representing a climate‐of‐origin gradient, experimentally planted from Arkansas, USA to Ontario, Canada at ten forested sites along a 1700‐km transect spanning beyond the species’ range. We hypothesized that each population's highest survival and growth would occur in its region of origin, with poorer performance in cooler or warmer areas. Refuting this hypothesis, seedlings of all three populations had greater growth and survival in sites increasingly warmer than their point of origin, although they did show poorer growth and survival at increasingly colder sites. We also hypothesized that maple survival and net growth near and beyond range margins are constrained primarily by cold temperature limitation in the north, where we expected neighbors to facilitate survival, and by competition in the south, where we expected to enhance survival and growth by reducing neighbor density. Results partially supported the hypothesis concerning biotic interactions: in canopy gaps, understory neighbors enhanced maple growth at the coolest sites but did not suppress growth as expected at the warmest sites. As the northern population grew and survived reasonably well beyond the northern range limit, and as all populations performed best at warmer sites, including beyond the southern range limit, there was tepid, if any, support for the hypothesis that climate regulated the northern limit and absolutely no support for the hypothesis that competition regulated the southern limit. Together, these three‐year findings with juvenile trees suggest that sugar maple range limits may instead be constrained by factors besides climate and competition, by those factors at another life stage, and/or by climate events such as heat waves, droughts, and cold snaps that occur at longer return intervals.

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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations38
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcological MonographsSame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207