MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3217305874 · doi:10.1080/02827581.2021.2005133

Regeneration failure of Scots pine changes the species composition of young forests

2021· article· en· W3217305874 on OpenAlexaff
Mostarin Ara, Ignacio Barbeito, Christer Kalén

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Journal of Forest Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScots pineBiodiversitySeedlingEcosystemForest ecologyRegeneration (biology)ForestryBiologyEcologyEnvironmental scienceGeographyAgroforestryPinus <genus>AgronomyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How seedling mortality and browsing affects species composition of regenerating forests has been mostly studied on a small scale. Yet, large-scale analyses based on extensive data are essential for robust prediction of species composition in young forests. In this study, we used a dataset from a national inventory of young forests (1–4 metres in height) to investigate the species composition of young forests across Sweden. We found that most of the regenerated forest area (almost 90%) was planted with Norway spruce (southern Sweden) and Scots pine (northern Sweden). Regeneration of Norway spruce was generally relatively successful but as a consequence of seedling mortality and browsing, almost 40% of the area regenerated with Scots pine will probably not develop into pine-dominated stands. Thus, low survival of Scots pine seedlings and trees can profoundly change the trajectory of species composition of the young forest from what was originally intended, and a large proportion of the young stands may develop into mixtures of conifers and broadleaves. While such mixtures may benefit certain biodiversity and ecosystem services, a loss of Scots pine dominated stands may also have adverse impacts on the economic returns as well as pine-dependent biodiversity and recreational values.

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)0.001
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.902

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations33
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScandinavian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207