MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3010913608 · doi:10.3390/f11030333

Early Regeneration Dynamics of Pure Black Spruce and Aspen Forests after Wildfire in Boreal Alberta, Canada

2020· article· en· W3010913608 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Stephanie A. Jean, Bradley D. Pinno, Scott E. Nielsen

Bibliographic record

VenueForests · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Resources Canada
KeywordsBlack spruceTaigaShrubEnvironmental scienceForbRegeneration (biology)BorealEcologyAgronomyBiologyGrassland

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research Highlights: Black spruce (Picea mariana Mill.) and trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) both regenerated vigorously after wildfire. However, pure semi-upland black spruce stands are at increasing risk of changing successional trajectories, due to greater aspen recruitment. Background and Objectives: Black spruce and aspen are found across the boreal forest with black spruce dominating lowlands and aspen being common in uplands. Both species are well adapted to wildfire with black spruce holding an aerial seedbank while aspen reproduce rapidly via root suckering. In the summer of 2016, the Horse River wildfire burned 589,617 hectares of northern Alberta’s boreal forest. Methods: We assessed early regeneration dynamics of both pure aspen and pure black spruce forests. For black spruce, 12 plots were established in both bog and semi-upland habitats to assess seedling regeneration and seedbed availability. For aspen, 12 plots were established in each of the low, moderate, and high burn severities, as well as 5 unburned plots. Results: Post-fire black spruce regeneration densities did not differ between bog and semi-upland habitats, but were positively correlated with forb cover and charred organic matter seedbeds. Aspen regeneration within pure black sprue stands was substantial, particularly in semi-upland habitats, indicating a potential shift in successional trajectory. Fire severity did not significantly affect aspen regeneration in pure aspen stands, but regeneration density in all severity types was >90,000 stems ha−1. Aspen regeneration densities were negatively related to post-fire forb and shrub cover, likely due to competition and cooler soil temperature.

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 score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestsSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207