MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3163692979 · doi:10.1080/11956860.2021.1916216

Phenology and regeneration status of<i>Terminalia tomentosa</i>(Roxb.) Wight &amp; Arn.: a tropical tree species of Indian forests

2021· article· en· W3163692979 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Manas Ranjan Mohanta, Rama C. Mohanty, Sudam C. Sahu

Bibliographic record

VenueEcoscience · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhenologyBiologyBotanyEcosystemRegeneration (biology)TropicsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Terminalia tomentosa (Roxb.) Wight & Arn., an important tree species in the tropical forests of India, is often reported to have poor or no regeneration in many parts of the country. The present study was conducted to evaluate the population structure and regeneration status of the species in three different forest types of the Similipal Biosphere Reserve, along with phenological behaviours for two consecutive years. Leaf initiation was positively correlated with fruit senescence (r = 0.76, p < 0.01) and flower initiation (r = 0.63, p < 0.01). However, a negative correlation was found between leaf initiation (LF2) and leaf senescence (LF5) (r = −0.42, p < 0.05). Principal Component Analysis showed that maximum temperature and rainfall in a given month are the main factors for pre-monsoon events (leaf senescence and fruit senescence) and post-monsoon events (growth and maturation of leaves and fruits). The results also revealed that regeneration failure of T. tomentosa was not due to phenological intensity but possibly to wrong phenological timing of fruit maturation. This study on regeneration status and phenological information of T. tomentosa could help develop strategies for conservation and management of this tropical tree species in its natural ecosystem.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.622
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcoscienceSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207