Repeated Stand-Replacing Crown Fires Affect Seed Morphology and Germination in Aleppo pine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Post-fire reproductive niche of Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis) is deeply interlaced with fire products. Indeed, the high pH and low osmotic potentials of ash beds under burnt crowns constitute main constraints to seed germination. In this study, we aim to investigate whether fire recurrence, through the physico-chemical constraints imposed by the ash beds, affects the reproduction ability of P. halepensis at the germination stage. To this aim, Aleppo pine seeds were collected in neighbouring even-aged stands subjected to 0, 1 or 2 fires (namely fire cohorts), and seed morphology and germination performance, in terms of cumulative germination and germination kinetics, were studied under increasing osmotic potentials (from 0.0 to -1.2 MPa) and pH (from 6 to 11). Besides fire history, the role of ontogenetic age of mother plants on seed morphology and germination has been also investigated. Differences in seed morphology among the three cohorts have been highlighted in a multivariate context, with anisotropic enlargement of the seeds produced by pine stands experiencing repeated fires. The patterns of seed germination varied primarily in relation to the fire cohort, with seeds from the pine stand experiencing repeated fires exhibiting enhanced tolerance to pH stress. Conversely, germination performances under osmotic constraints mainly depends on tree ontogenetic stage, with an involvement of fire history especially in the timing of seed germination. Our results suggest that, at least in the short term, fire recurrence does not constrain the reproduction ability of Aleppo pine. These results stimulate new research branches to elucidate the mechanisms behind these responses to recurrent fires.
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) | 0.000 | 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".