MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3204647349 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2021-0148

Invasive alien species in protected areas: the dynamics of <i>Pinus taeda</i> at Rio Canoas State Park – Brazil

2021· article· en· W3204647349 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bruna Hellen Ricardo, Alexandre Siminski, Maurício Sedrez dos Reis

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa e Inovação do Estado de Santa Catarina
KeywordsPinus <genus>Vegetation (pathology)ForestryGeographyBiologyEcologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biological invasion is a growing problem, and species of the genus Pinus are known to be a problem in the forests of southern Brazil, including in conservation units. Here, we studied the ecology of Pinus taeda L. invasion in Rio Canoas State Park (PAERC) in regards to forest inventory, soil seed bank analysis, and seed rain assessment, in three distinct successional stages inside the park referred to as “Pinus invasion”, “Old Growth Vegetation”, and “Initial Vegetation”. The forest inventory of 33 (20 m × 20 m) plots found Pinus in two of the three evaluated environments. Seed rain was collected bimonthly using 33 (1 m × 1 m) seed traps for a period of 1 year. The major seed distribution periods were in April and June, confirming data found in the literature. The seed bank was analyzed in February (summer) and June (winter) of 2018. Samples were kept in a greenhouse for a period of 120 days each. Summer evaluation showed no emergence of Pinus taeda seedlings, but the winter evaluation (June) did show the emergence of seedlings. The results showed that the soil seed bank is not persistent. Accordingly, the Pinus invasion reported at PAERC requires a restoration program, as well as one that controls reinfestation.

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)0.001
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 score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicFire effects on ecosystems→French-language works237,207→