MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225717340 · doi:10.23880/jenr-16000272

Evaluation of assisted natural regeneration and stored carbon in Prioria balsamifera (Vermoesen) Bretteler plots of the Luki Biosphere Reserve in Central Kongo, Democratic Republic of Congo

2022· article· en· W4225717340 on OpenAlexaff
Tolérant Lubalega

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ecology & Natural Resources · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAfrican Botany and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForestryDiversity indexHectareBiomass (ecology)Species richnessBasal areaFloristicsBiologyNatural regenerationNature reserveEcologySampling (signal processing)BotanyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extensive programs of enrichment through natural assisted regeneration were implemented between 1946 and 1959 by INEAC (Institute National pour étude Agronomique du Congo belge). He has conducted several studies for the implementation of silvicultural techniques in tropical environments, particularly in the Luki Biosphere Reserve (RBL) in the DRC. The Prioria balsamifera natural assisted regeneration (RNA) plots were part of the various silvicultural treatments implemented between 1956 and 1962 after clear-cutting. Five decades after their establishment, no evaluation has been undertaken. The objective of this study is to evaluate the natural assisted regeneration in the P. balsamifera plots and to account for the carbon sequestered in the P. balsamifera RNA after clear-cutting. The methodological approach to floristic, dendrometric and allometric inventories was used to determine the specific richness and diversity of the different study plots and to account for the carbon of the RNA biomass of the fifteen sampling plots of 0,25 ha each at three sites: Camp1; Camp2 and the RBL Post. The study revealed a higher density per hectare in the Camp1 plot, almost double the last two plots of the sampling. The density / ha varied between 380 to 980 stems / ha. The same trend was observed on the basal area (m2 / ha). This varied between 43 and 68 m2 / ha. The Shannon index used for the analysis of wealth and specific diversity varied between 0.8 and 1.6. The Camp1 plot showed little diversity compared to other plots of sampling. The mean téq CO2 / ha values in our fifteen sample plots (Camp1, amp2, RBL station) are estimated to be 1793.96 téq CO2 / ha, 985.28 teqCO2 / ha and 1305.8 téq CO2 / ha respectively for the three plots.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score0.756

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Ecology & Natural ResourcesSame topicAfrican Botany and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207