Spatial correlations between browsing on balsam fir by white‐tailed deer and the nutritional value of neighboring winter forage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Associational effects, that is, the influence of neighboring plants on herbivory suffered by a plant, are an outcome of forage selection. Although forage selection is a hierarchical process, few studies have investigated associational effects at multiple spatial scales. Because the nutritional quality of plants can be spatially structured, it might differently influence associational effects across multiple scales. Our objective was to determine the radius of influence of neighbor density and nutritional quality on balsam fir (Abies balsamea) herbivory by white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in winter. We quantified browsing rates on fir and the density and quality of neighboring trees in a series of 10‐year‐old cutovers on Anticosti Island (Canada). We used cross‐correlations to investigate relationships between browsing rates and the density and nutritional quality of neighboring trees at distances up to 1,000 m. Balsam fir and white spruce (Picea glauca) fiber content and dry matterin vitrotrue digestibility were correlated with fir browsing rate at the finest extra‐patch scale (across distance of up to 50 m) and between cutover areas (300–400 m). These correlations suggest associational effects, that is, low nutritional quality of neighbors reduces the likelihood of fir herbivory (associational defense). Our results may indicate associational effects mediated by intraspecific variation in plant quality and suggest that these effects could occur at scales from tens to hundreds of meters. Understanding associational effects could inform strategies for restoration or conservation; for example, planting of fir among existing natural regeneration could be concentrated in areas of low nutritional quality.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".