Importance of the canopy in determining on‐going regeneration and stand successional development in lodgepole pine forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Question What are the processes driving regeneration and successional pathways inPinus contortasubsp.latifoliaDouglas ex Loudon forests? Location Canadian Rockies, Alberta, Canada. Methods We used five 1‐ha long‐term permanent plots, dendrochronological stand reconstruction and detailed spatial analysis of stem‐mapped data. Results Establishment of shade‐intolerant species mainly occurred within 20 years post‐fire but important later recruitment of these species was observed in the drier plots, primarily in gaps in stands that had more open canopies. Shade‐tolerant species established quickly following fires on moister sites but, despite apparent seed source availability after the stand‐initiating fire, their establishment was delayed in the drier sites, most likely due to moisture limitations. Shade‐tolerant regeneration was clustered around shade‐tolerant trees that had established immediately post‐disturbance; this suggests the latter served as seed sources and perhaps created favourable microsites for establishment. Conclusion Competition for light, dispersal limitation and moisture limitations were all processes influencing regeneration and successional pathways in theseP. contortastands. Although initial studies in these stands had suggested some of the stands could potentially be self‐perpetuatingP. contortaforests, our results suggest that all plots studied will likely transition towards dominance of shade‐tolerant species. However the rate of this transition will likely be slower in the drier sites compared to the moister sites since the density of shade‐tolerant regeneration was much lower in these sites and took longer to establish (ca. 70–90 years) post‐disturbance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".