MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2774444721 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2017-0299

Vertical distribution of foliar biomass in western larch (<i>Larix occidentalis</i>)

2017· article· en· W2774444721 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Geoffrey M. Williams, Andrew S. Nelson, David L.R. Affleck

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Forest ServiceJoint Fire Science ProgramU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsLarchCrown (dentistry)DeciduousEvergreenBiomass (ecology)Larix gmeliniiBiologyBotanyDiameter at breast heightDistribution (mathematics)Woody plantEcologyHabitForestryAgronomyGeographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Western larch (Larix occidentalis Nutt.) is an endemic pioneer species in northwestern North America and unique as a deciduous conifer and the most shade-intolerant, fastest growing, and most fire-resistant species in the northwestern United States. To better understand its production ecology, we used a multilevel modeling approach to analyze the intrinsic dynamics of western larch vertical foliage distribution and compared it with other species. We found that western larch allocates foliage into a more diffuse distribution as the crown lengthens, whereas shade-tolerant evergreens concentrate foliage into a more monolayered distribution higher within the crown as it lengthens. Crown foliar biomass scaled linearly with diameter at breast height, indicating that western larch does not fill volume in the crown with foliage at an increasing rate like other conifers. Our model supports the hypothesis that foliar shade intolerance and water stress jointly influence foliage allocation in this deciduous conifer. These results also highlight intrinsic foliage distribution as a factor potentially contributing to the inability of western larch to survive light-limiting conditions and its preference for mesic sites. The models developed here provide a basic framework that may be built upon to study the morphological response of western larch to modified stand conditions such as disturbance and silvicultural treatment.

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 score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations12
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics→French-language works237,207→