MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Primary succession pathway of Norway spruce communities on land-uplift seashores

2003· article· en· W2541885766 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Johan Svensson, John K. Jeglum

Bibliographic record

VenueEcoscience · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersStiftelsen Oscar och Lili Lamms Minne
KeywordsEcological successionPrimary successionTransectEcologySecondary successionPicea abiesPhysical geographyTaigaAlpine climateGeographyEnvironmental scienceGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rising Gulf of Bothnia coastlines provide sequences of primary succession. This paper, based on data from transects in northeast Sweden (63º 51’ N, 20º 43’ E), elucidates the pathway of Norway spruce community succession on ground-moraine seashores. We studied spatial and temporal variation in depth of surface organic layer, cover of field layer and bottom layer, density of spruce categories from current seedlings to mature and dead spruce, and diversity changes. We found that field layer declines in cover while bottom layer increases in cover and that field and bottom layers and spruce category diversity show unimodal trends with time of succession. Modal diversity occurred after 100 to 200 years for field- and bottom-layer types and after 200 to 230 years for spruce categories. We also found that spruce seedlings are able to colonize after only 30 to 40 years of succession (25 to 35 cm above mean sea level), that spruce category size increases with time of succession, and that spruce mortality occurs both among small-sized trees at earlier stages and among larger-sized trees at later stages approaching old-growth conditions. We present successional stages of field- and bottom-layer types, and of spruce categories, developed from TWINSPAN analyses and models of organic layer depth development over time.

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 score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.790

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations9
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcoscienceSame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207